The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1900-01-01
THE RIGHTS OF NEUTRALs AND
BELLIGERENTS


the Sentinel shows both ignorance and NAL
ice. 1t says:
The interference with our commerce with
neutral ports is insufferable. and would not
be tolerated for moment IL we had a gen.
uine American administration. And
what makes the matter worse, il is but
few days since Secretary Hay, in reply to
Boer. protests, declared the right of our
people to trade with either party to the
war. and therefore refused to interfere not
only with shipments of provisions TO the
British, but also with shipments of arms
and munitions of war. II Is a most dis
graceful and humiliating situation. for
which no explanation can possibly be given
except the desire of the administration to
assist Great Britain in this unjustifiable
war, even at the cost of sacrificing the plain
rights of American merchants.
1t will be time enough to talk about the
rights of American merchants being sacri-
feed when the ultimate facts in the case
are ascertained. At present it is not known
what the British authorities have done, nor
what position they intend to take regarding
the alleged seizure of American -four. If
English naval officers have acted without
instructions and done something not au-
thorized by international law, the govern
ment will probably repudiate their action,
express regret and perhaps offer repara-
ton. For obvious reasons, already pointed
out by the Journal, there is no probability
that Great Britain will declare food prod
ucts contraband of war, though circum-
stances might exist in which that or any
other nation at war would have right to
so declare and enforce the declaration. 1t
OLE hot ba
tanned, besides -four, other articles clearly
contraband, such as army cloth, blankets.
boots and shoes. all of which have been
held contraband by American, as well as
by English prize courts, and in that case
the whole cargo could be seized. The fact
that it was consigned TO a neutral port
would not necessarily save it from seizure,
If contraband. The Supreme Court of the
United States has laid down the rule that
the destination of the goods. rather than
that of the ship, determines the question Of
liability to seizure. If the facts show that
the goods were destined to the of
belligerent the court held that they were
liable to condemnation, even though they
were ostensibly destined to a neutral port.
In the present case the probability is that
if the cargo consisted entirely of food prod
ucts it will be released with an apology. in
which case the injury done to American
commerce will not be sufficient to justify
the most rampant anti-administration man
in putting on his war paint.
1t is true, as stated, that Secretary of
Gently declared the right of Americans TO
trade with either of the bellgerents, and
therefore declined to interfere even with
shipments of munitions of Gar to the Brit
ish. The secretary is exactly correct The
right of neutral to carry on trade with
either or both of the parties to a war is
unquestioned, but if he ships contraband
goods he does so at his risk. The right
of a belligerent to seize contraband goods
is as we'll settled as the right of neutral
to sell and ship them. An American writer
on international law says:
The law of nations permits a belligerent
to exercise peculiar jurisdiction over neu-
trail commerce in time of war. This juris-
diction is so extensive as to amount to an
absolute prohibition of certain kinds of
trade. III Is nnlteQ IN It's extent anu opera
tions only by the zeal and energy which
belligerents display in its exercise. This
jurisdiction extends to the prohibition of
neutral trade with belligerents in certain
articles susceptible of military use, and to
the prohibition of all trade with certain
ports closed by blockade. To make these
prohibitions effective a belligerent is given
the right to stop and search all neutral
merchant vessels on the high seas, in his
own territorial waters, or in those OF his
enemy, for the purpose of determining the
nationality Of ships and goods, and of as
pertaining whether they contain contra
band of war.
Under this rule the right of search for
and seizure of contraband goods belongs TO
both the British and the Beers plainly
as the right to trade with both does to cit
| liens of the United States. The fact that
| Great Britain has ships and can exercise
| the right to search and seize, while the
| Beers have no ships, cannot change the
| rule of international law. 1t is understood
! that the Beers, as we'll as the British, have
| bought some munitions of war in this
| country. Both of the belligerents have a
right to do this as each has to capture
and confscate contraband goods belonging
| to or intended for the other. wherever they
| may be found afioat. Ignorance of these
principles may be excused, but the malice
| that prompts an attack on the administra-
| ton without any ground and merely to
make political capital is neither lovely nor
| admirable.