The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1906-04-08
Cutting Submarine Cables in War

If abelligerent cuts, outside the three
mile limit, a submarine cable belonging
to a neutral, but laid to the enemy's terri
tory, is there any obligation to pay the
bill for repairs? The French Govern
ment, which has a claim against the
United States for damages caused by the
cutting Of the Cuban cable in the war
with Spain, contends that the American
Government is liable; but our State
Department, while recommending that
the bill of S77,712 be paid, does not admit
the liability. When the matter came
UP in the House Of Representatives a
day or two ago Mr.. GILLETT of Massa-
chusetts wanted to know what legal basis
there was for the claim Of the Compagnie
FRANCHISE DIES Cables T~elegraphiques
which the French Government was try
ing to collect. ave do not pay for ordi-
nary private property which we damage
in case of war" he said. why is this
private property different from other
private property" Mr.. MAHoN Of Penn
sylvania replied that the cable was cut
"on Tire high seas" beyond the three
mile limit. Mr., PAYNE OF New York
was not convinced that any liability
had been incurred because the acts were
done-the cable was cut in twelve places
beyond the three mile limit. at would
seem to me-" he said, that a French
citizen making an investment in Cuba
went there under the Spanish authority
and took the protection of the Spanish
law, and if the Spanish Government was
unable to protect him in a war waged
by the United States, why should the
United States pay the damage?"
If a letter from Secretary Roof urg
ing payment of the claim had not
been read to the House the bill OF the
French company would probably have
been hung up a~gain-two Congresses
had already sighted It. In his letter
Mr.. RooT said: The Government of the
French Republic has at no time relaxed
it's interest in the enactment of the
contemplated relief, and has repeatedly
expressed its confidence that the United
States would meet it's admitted moral
liability in the premises. International
good faith requires hat this be done"
Mr.. RooT's letter was addressed to
Speaker CANNON. The Secretary was
careful not to commit himself to the
opinion that the French Government had
a legal claim. "There is no interna-
tional law said Mr.. MAHoN. " 1t is
simply international comfy and good
faith and equity" Indeed, the bill
provided for payment of the claim "as
an act Of grace and comfy" Equity is
n pretty good basis for international
law; but, after all, what do the authori-
ties say?
Cable cutting in war is comparatively !
new as a belligerent act, and the law of
nations with regard to it has not taken
shape. The United States Naval War
Code, Article ", lays down the rule that
submarine telegraphic cables between
the territory of an enemy and neutral
territory may be interrupted within the
territorial jurisdiction of the enemy. "
There is not much light here, for in the |
House it was stated by Mr.. MAHoN |
that the cable cutting was done outside
the three mile limit. With the greater |
range of ordnance this has become rather
a vague and certainly an unsatisfactory
term. We are inclined to doubt whether
Mr.. MAHoN had the facts pat. The
American naval officers must have known
the war code by heart; moreover, the
cable cutters could have been in no
great danger from the Spanish fire on
shore. 1t is a fact that two cable sta
tons were destroyed by our guns, and
bill presented no doubt includes COM
pensation for the stations. At the meet
of the Institute of international Law
at Brussels in 1902 it was resolved, or
that on the high seas a cable
belonging to a neutral could be cut only !
Z an effective blockade existed and