The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1916-06-12
THE CASE OF THE ADELA.
In No Court Was the Question Of
Treatment Of the Malls Raised.

reply 10 my comments on HS iv'" VI
argument Mr.. A. Maurice Low In an.
other letter to THE sun has presented
what he calls precedent and authority
He remarks:
I am afraid Mr.. Bigeiow Ia not A. vel
Informed on the legal, political and mill
tary history OF hts own country as NJ
ought to he, other wise he would not have
asked the question.
I did not ask the question which MI
Low goes to the pains OF answering
My only question was the abstract one
whether there could be q law superior
20 that Of British interests. Perhaps
/ ought to know more history than ]
do. At any rate. ] appreciate Mr..
Lows we'll meant efforts to improve
my mind in that direction. but a man
Of history and yet be rational. That
is all that is necessary to puncture the
fallacy at which ] have aimed.
| did not say that there was no prece-
| dent for Great Britain's interference
with neutral nails, There ID perhaps
no wrong for which some precedent may
not he found. called attention to the
fact that MIR. Low had not cited any.
and vas attempting to make his point
Independently OF presidents. on the
principle. apparently. that a neutral haa
w tf6iNH '
to respect. Nothing In Mr.. Lows last
l,tter bear; upon this criticism. except
TO confirm IL. He cites an alleged
precedent which IL no precedent. and
concludes with the observation
Surely a. a good American Mr.. BiGelov
viii admit that a precedent established.
Get up ana enforced by the Government
Of the United states In 1884 IL . most
excellent precedent for the British Gov
eminent TO follow In 1915
THIS IL Of a piece with the reaso ming
In Mr.. Lows first letter. Why does
he refer TO me az "a good American"
Because he assumes that my mind works
the way his does. ! take this on the
whole as a compliment. but | protest
that I have not the national spirit
which he attributes to me. All the
patriotism that I can summon up doer
not enable me TO see that a precedent
made In 1852. though 1t he by my "
Government. II necessarily rood prac-
tlce for the British Government or any
Government to-day. What Mr.. Low
tries to Justify In the present methods
OF the British navy may have been law
ful in 1852 and be unlawful in 1915.
hut ! do not admit that II was lawful
in 1852. ! deny the alleged precedent.
To be a precedent II must he an act
VI NV rNil NAhN ~ NV UsNF
and must have been a~djudged by a
court or other superior authority Of
the United states to he lawful and
proper.
Mr.. Low cites tho case ~ the Adela
fie represents this vessel carrying
merchandise and mails from one British
port to another as being captured by
a Federal cruiser and brought to Key
West as a prize Of war. and her mails
-. -N-- -
Federal officers The Adela was
destined for a ~blockaded port % wal
lace, 1861. This difcren,iatcs her case
from the cases under consideration In
the present war. cases Of neutral desti-
nation. A neutral port cannot he
~blockaded that is. not legally. But as
Stunning that the Adela was destined to
a neutral or unblockadcd port and that
the case was one Of the same kind as
In the present war, 1t Was not. 40 far
as mails were concerned, sanctioned or
approved by either the judicial or the
executive branch ~ our Government. II
came before the supreme Court as q
case of capture and condemnation. II
vac subsequently heard by tho Anglo
| American Claims commission formed
under the treaty ~ Washington MAJ
s, lsID on a claim Of unlawful APP
'urc. and the claim was unanimously,
| u.s. low fls IN iflnsf court WAS any
question raised as to the treatment Of
mails,
hid the British Government and peo-
pie resign themselves To having their
mails opened and searched by a bell'gcr-
emf No. Such action, so far as II
took place. was discountenanccd and
stopped by the United States Govern
ment. The Adcla was captured, Mr..
Low says. on July I, 1852, Before the
facts were established in WI Washington
action was taken to prevent the practice
which Mr.. Low would have MS recognize
as "A precedent. II was August 8. 1862.
when Secretary Seward wrote to Sec
ictary Ncllcs:
! am directed hv the President 10 ask
YOU 90 give the following Instructions ex-
rlici'ly to the naval officer. OF the Cni,ed
states, ma WclN. o~1cl,l seals or
lock. ~ fas'cuiuE- ~ foreign authorities
are IN NO r--", nor on any preteNt. 10 he
broken, 0r parcels covered Nv them. read
hy am MAYA authority % the United states;
'u' an bags ui nthor 'htngs conveying such
/ parcels AVID duly sealed or fastened by
foreign Euthoriti,. NIL nc. IN IN. dis
erection Of tho Uuitri states officer to whom
thoN may come delivered to tho consul.
commanding naval oNcer. or legation, q,
n" foreign GoNernm"nt IN h" opened upon
n" understanding that whatever Ia con.
tfaband or important as evidence con
,'fninc n" character Of captured
vessel MI hc RENTED 10 tn. prize court
og % tho Secretary OF SAT. at Washing.
ton, ~ such scaled bags Or parcels mar
he at once forwarded to this Department.
to ih' end that Tho proper authorities Of
the foreign Government may receive IN.
same without delay.
There Was no provision made for In