The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1900-01-07

on the question Of its masters knowledge
Of the character or destination Of the con-
traband persons. 1t was remarked in
that case that few officers might be of
more value to an enemy than a whole
transport of ordinary Soldiers, and that
beyond question they were all contra
band
Subsequently, in aacomplication between
this government and Gneat Britain, our
secretary of state, Mr. GaHatin, eommu-
nieating on Aug. 9, 1925, ito our minister to
England. Mr.. Everett, used this language
1--WE deny the right of capturing or TAX
ing out of neutral ships (and therefore
searching for) persons Of any description
whatever, with one single exception-that
of soldiers in service of the enemy, pro-
vided for in treaties" but he stated in
subsequent part Of the communication
that she was not ready to assert that all
enemies may be taken out of neutral
ship. whether they are soldiers in actual
service Of the enemy or not
But during our war with Mexico Mr..
complained that Capt. May, of the British
mail steamer Teviot, In August, 1S47,
brought Gen. Paroles, then late president
of Mexico and largely responsible for that
war, from Havana to Vera Cruz, claiming
that the Teviot was liable to conflscation.
Lord Palmerston replied that the captain
command, which was a concession that
carriage Of such a passenger to bellig-
erent destination was a violation Of neu-
trality. The American contention in that
case was concisely, put by Secretary of
State Buchanan in letter to Mr.. Ban
croft. as follows: "a neutral vessel which
carries a Mexican officer of high military
rank to Mexico for the purpose of taking
part in the hostilities to our country is
liable to confscation, according to Sir
William Scott -'";
The most noted case involving the
United States,o this subject, was that Of
the Trent, a royal mail line steamer OF
Great Britain. It was carrying Messrs.
Mason and Slidell, diplomatic agents Of
the Southern Confederaey to the court Of
st. James and Paris, from Havana to
Nassau, and was consequently plying be-
tween neutral ports. The vessel was
stopped by federal man-of-war, and
these officers, together with their papers
and effects, were taken off and brought to
an American port as prisoners and prize
of war. These persons, on demand of
were released, Secretary of State
Seward holding that the vessel should
have been brought in as prize, and as
that was not done the prisoners were I'm
lawfully detained, although they were Of
contraband character.
The fact that the Bundesrath and it's
contraband persons were destined to a
neutral port could not affect the right Of
seizure if the vessels owners or officers
were cognizant Of the military character
was decided in the case of the Orozembo,
the destination in that case: being Ma
Gao, but there was intent to go after
wards to the intended seat of war, Bata-
via. But in the case of the Trent the Eng
fish claimed that a vessel plying between
neutral ports was not subject to be
10 tho n
erent persons on board.
1t has been stated by the German press
rftory If such is the case there can be
no doubt that the seizure was unlawful
so far as the country is concerned in
whose waters 1t was seized. But in case
of such a seizure, where the vessel Is
carrying contraband of war; there Is
serious doubt if any one can complain ex-
cent the country whose territorial rights
have been invaded. In the present case,
for instance, the German government is
neutral herself, and must discountenance
any act violating neutrality committed
by her individuals or vessels. If a YES
sci flying her flag commits breach OF
neutrality and is wrongfully captured
in neutral waters, she bias no right to
complain, since her vessel committed the
first unlawful act, and 1t would be al
lowing her owners to- take advantage of
their wrong to ask for or receive In
dernnity for the unlawful seizure. 1t Is
also a general rule of law that where
both parties are equally guilty in an
unlawful affair, the law leaves them In
the status in which it finds them, and In
this case that would be, the German
vessel in the hands Of the English,
claimed as prize of war. All Things con"
sidered. it would seem beyond question
that Germany could not complain TO
England. However, she could complain
to the country in whose territory the YES
sci was seized, and force it to complain
to England on account Of the unlawful
seizure. Again, the object OF the rule
forbidding seizure in neutral waters ls
for the quiet, safety and protection OF
the nation owning the waters. and is not
an asylum right. True, a nation may
make of itself an asylum if it SO wishes,
and nations often do so, but that Is
different thing from the ordinary rule
prohibiting seizures in neutral waters.
BY diplomatic pressure Germany might
force the invaded neutral country to COM
plain on account Of the English seizure,
and the claim would be good. A noted
ga Sc nartIv involving this principle arose