New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1900-01-04
SEARCH, SEIZURE AND JUSTICE

Diplomatic proceedings have been promptly
Instituted in the matter of Great Brtain's SELF
ure, or detention. of some American goods in
South Africa. That was to be expected, and is
quite proper. One of the first duties of a gov
eminent is to safeguard the rights Of its own
constituents; a duty paramount to consdera-
tons Of international friendship or sympathy
though by no means Incompatible with them
There is no reason why the United States
should not, at the same time and with entire
consistency, entertain cordial feelings of friend
ship for Great Britain observe neutrality in
the South African war; and maintain and vindi-
cate the rights Of its citizens in commerce.
The first and second of these things it has been
doing. The third now that occasions seem to
befall, 1t is at present engaged in doing. 1t is
doing 1t. however, not as some seem to think,
by giving orders" to or making demands
upon another sovereign Power but by the
reasonable and dignified processes of dplo-
matte action.
The United States has not ordered Great
Britain to stop making seizures" nor has it COM
mitted any similar absurdity. 1t has Informed
Great Britain that it does not admit the legality
of her seizure of certain goods shipped by
American merchants to a neutral port In South
Africa. That is not arbitrary prejudgment
of the case and Indictment of Great Britain for
unlawful seizure; but simply a notice that this
country has not yet seen reason to accept the
British view of the case, and an intmation that
the onus Of proving the British view and action
rightly rests upon Great Britain 1t has the eff
feet not of arragning. CHALLENGING or menacing
Great Britain but simply of safeguarding all
American rights. No rational man supposes that
the United States means to demand tolerance
of any illegal or contraband commerce. or that
Great Britain proposes to Cypress or to prohibit
any lawful and In good faith neutral commerce.
There is a difference of opinion between the
two governments, probably arising from differ
ing information to the facts in the case.
There is every reason for confidence that with
full and accurate information on both sides
that difference will be replaced by agreement.
There will be violation of the neutrality
laws, and there will be abuse of the rights
of search and seizure. And if it shall be made
to appear that Great Britain has exceeded her
rights In Selling American goods as contraband
of war, it is not conceivable that even the ex-
tremest Anglophobe doubts her full respon-
sibility or her entire ability to make pecun-
larry amends.
The general questions involved concerning
the seizure Of goods consigned to a neutral
port and the contraband or non-contraband
character of foodstuffs, have of late been
answered offhand in shrili tones, perhaps 10
the satisfaction of the answerers but scarcely
we imagine, to that Of persons of sober 1udg-
ment. There are few points in international
law more mooted and less definitely determined
than that relating to contraband of war. To
go no further afield than our own little war of
the year before last: This country then held
coal to be contraband of war; and enforced that
view, although other countries were under
stood to dissent from it, and although indeed,
fha TDit ad had
contrary view. As to the contraband or other
character of provisions, it must be recalled that
in the Jay treaty between the United States
and Great Britain, in 1874, 1T was explicitly rec
ogniZed that in certain cases provisions and
'other articles not generally contra band NAV
"be regarded SUCH" And to precisely the
same effect is an opinion of the United States
Supreme Court, delivered by Mr.. Justice Story
that provisions become contraband, although
1.-The property of a neutral, on account of the
particular situation of the war or on account
"of their destination.
1t is to be assumed, therefore, that there Is
something to be said upon both sides of the
present case, and the reported diplomatic action
seems to promise that it will be said with cour-
tesy and calmness BETTING the intercourse Of
civilized nations. Such, it will be remembered
was the in own war with Spain, to
first acts of this Nation In that war included
seizures of a considerable number of vessels
of various nationaities. Most of those seizures
were justifable; they were so declared by the
prize courts and were so recognized by the gov
ernments concerned. A few of them, unfortu-
nately, were not justifable, and the vessels
were released and restored to their owners:
some of them by action of the prize courts and
some through diplomatic process Thus the
Swedish ship st. Andrew, laden with coal. was
seized under a misapprehension, and was re-
leased on proper representations by the French
Ambassador There thought that the
United States wantonly depressing the
commerce of other nations and there was no
disposition on the part Of other nations to en-
barrass this Government by captious and pet
ulant interference with the recognized right OF
search and seizure. Despite the strldent voices
that here and there vex the air, It Is To- be as.