New-York tribune., 1902-09-06
An ACT OF PIRACY.
SEIZURE OF THE GERMAN STEAMER
MARKOMANNIA BY FIRMIN-
IST GUNBOAT
rgr rELEeRAPE 10 HE TnrRCNE.

III TELEGRAPH 10 The TDIBCSE-l
Washington, Sept 5.-The probable action OF
the German Government in the case of the se1z-
ure off Cape Haytien on September by the
Firrninist gunboat Crete-a-P -Pierrot OF the Ger
man merchant steamer Markomannia. wh1ch
was Carrying a cargo of arms 10 the PROVISIONAL
Government Of Hayti. is the subject Of some
conjecture at the State Department, especially
as it touches interesting question Of inter
national law involving principles which do not
seem to be entirely well settled The general
principle of the law of nations is that the sale
and expectation Of arms and ammunition are
free to all. even in time Of war. The persons
engaging in such trade subject themselves. how
ever, to the risk of confsca ton of such arms
and ammunition may fall into the hands OF
belliserent on the way to the ports Of his
enemy. The rule, stated by President Jeffer-
son, IS:
Our citizens have always been free to make
vend and export arms. II is the constant occu-
patton and livelihood of some of them 10 sup.
press their callings-the only means, perhaps. or
their observation-disclosures a war exists III Tor
efgn ana distant countries, in when we nave
no concern, would scarcely be expected: lt
would be hard in principle and impossible in
practice. The law of nations therefore, respect
ing the rights of those al peace, does not require
from them such internal arrangement in
their occupations It is satisfied with the
ternal penalty pronounced in the Presidents
proclamatfon-that OF confscation OF such por-
tions of these arms shall fall into the HANDS
of the belligerent powers their way to the
ports of their enemies.
WHEN SEIZURES ARE LAWFUL.
This rule. however presupposes the existence
Of state of belHgerency. coallict between
two parties who have been recognized by foreign
powers as bellIgerents. There has been such
recognition of beIligerency in the Haytian con-
flict. 1t is we'll settled that the parties engaged
in a domestic conflict have right to interfere
with neutral vessels on the high seas where all
nations are in time of peace equal II is only
when a condition Of recognized belligerency ex-
lists that authority to Interfere with such vessels
on the common highway of nations is conceded.
In case which arose in 1880, where an Aneri-
can merchant vessel was seized by Colombian
insurgents on the high seas, Secretary Bayard
took the position that naval authorities in
Colombia should Immediately take measures 10
recapture the vessel The proposition laid down
by him was:
When vessels belonging to citizens OF the
United States have been seized and now
navigated on the high seas by persons not rep
resentins any government or beiligerent power
recognized by the United States, such vessels
may be captured and rescued by heir owrers,
or by United States cruisers acting for such
owners. and all force which is necessary for
such purpose may be used to make the capture
effectuai
1t does not definitely appear from the pub
llshed dispatches whether the seizure of the
within Havtian waters. This :act has i'm
portant bearing the question involved. While
il is we'll settled that insurgents have no right
to interfere with the vessels of a thrd power
Oh the high seas even when carrying contra |
ba nd of their enemy. the right OF parties |
to n domestic conflict TO carry on hostiIities
does not depend on the recognition Of belliyer-
ency. and in such cases foreign powers generally
acknowledge the duty Of non-interference. It
seems clear that third power cannot inter
fere within the Jurisdiction Of the nation in |
which the insurrection prevails except on the
grounds OF self-d defence against acts of wauton
injury. While neutral governments are not
bound TO prevent II. the supply Of materials of
war to either party TO an armed coudi-t con-
sttutes on the part of the individuals who en-
gage in 1t a participation In hostiIitfes The
generally accepted view is that INSURGENTS have
a right prevent within the jurisdiction in
which the conflict is being carried on tn, SUD-
plying of war ma reviaIs 10 their enemy
The question was exhaustively discussed bv
the eminent international law writer. Professor
John Bassett Moore, in his lectures az the
in the summer of last year. The conclusion
reached By him was:
Without regard to the recognition or non
recognition OF beliigerenCy. party TO q civil
.->-----,,=r=-zs<.=--~----