CO885-(15-16) — Page 57

R

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :--

C.O. 885

15 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- | COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO

8

had for its main object the prohibition of Spanish messages or messages useful to Spain over the land-lines and cables of the Companies actually connected with United States' territory.

Accordingly, the Cable Companies which are constituted under the laws of neutral States, e.g., Great Britain and France, construed the order as relating only to the short cables actually landed in the United States and the land-lines to towns in the States, and not to the main Transatlantic cables, laid, for the most part, between points in British territory-in one case between points in French territory. They consequently declined to transmit official Spanish telegrams or messages useful to Spain as defined by the order to and from places in the United States, but continued throughout the war to transmit such telegrams across the Atlantic between points in British or French territory, e.g., Canada and Newfoundland (British) and St. Pierre (French), on the one band, and Ireland, Great Britain, and France on the other. In particular, telegrams were being sent between Spain and the West Indies via Halifax, in Nova Scotia, and Bermuda.

The two Cable Companies which are constituted in and controlled from America (the Commercial Cable Company and the Western Union Company) on the other hand, did, after General Greely's order, refuse to transmit Spanish Government telegrams across the Atlantic, and such telegrams were diverted to the cables of the British Companies.

The United States' Government acquiesced in the construction put upon its order by the British and French Cable Companies, and no attempt was made to coerce these Companies (e.g., by seizing their property in United States' territory or cutting their cables in United States' waters) into a complete boycotting of Spanish Government messages or messages useful to Spain.

Indeed, the incident seems to show that the action of the United States' Govern- ment was founded less on any doctrine relating to the duties of neutral States than on the view that private trading Companies enjoying advantages at the hands of a belli- gerent should not use those advantages for the benefit of the other belligerent. It is in this spirit that General Greely comments upon the conduct of the foreign Cable "The French Tele- Companies in his report, made after the conclusion of the war. graphic Cable Company," he says, "gave the strongest possible evidence of loyal and Faithful compliance with the requirements of the United States, acceptable evidence that the hospitality shown by the Government to this Company was appreciated. During the critical period in Cuba this Company strove to fulfil its obligations as a neutral Corporation, although most trying and difficult conditions obtained, with a Spanish military censor at its office in Santiago, and an American military censor at Playa del Este." (See "Incidents,"

p. 48.)

General Greely's order and the action taken upon it also show how the intimate commercial relations between civilized nations at the present day make it difficult to interfere,* in the interests of a belligerent, with the great channels of communication.

The Spanish Government made no attempt, by exercising any power it possessed over the Cable Companies using its territories, to prevent the transmission of American official messages through neutral or, even at one point, through Spanish territory.

It may, therefore, confidently be said that every incident of the late war supports the principle laid down by the Law Officers, that it is not the duty of a neutral State to prevent the transmission, by telegraphic lines or cables on its territory, of the messages of belligerents.

It is, however, to be borne in mind that, owing to the situation of the belligerents, each found it in his interests to use telegraphs on neutral territories. Consequently, neither would perhaps be likely to complain of the facilities afforded to the other in this connection.

As the obverse of the freedom of neutral telegraphs, the Law Officers laid down that a belligerent "might protect himself by cutting the cable' (used to carry his adversary's messages) on the high seas or in the enemy's territorial waters."

*

It is interesting to note to what extent the practice of the late war illustrates this view.

In giving their advice, the Law Officers made no distinction between the cutting

of a cable connecting-

1. Two stations of the enemy;

2. A station of the enemy and the station of a neutral;

• The British Government has, during the war with the South African Republic, stopped at

Aden code or cypher telegrams for the whole of East and South Africa.

3. Two neutral stations.

9

The war furnishes many instances of the cutting of cables, in the first category, e.g., that between Santiago de Cuba and Manzanillo (Cuba), and that between Manila and Iloilo (Philippine Islands), both of which cables were cut by the United States.

"dead"

The United States also cut cables in the second category, namely, between Manila and Hong Kong, and between Santiago de Cuba (Spain) and Hayti (Republic of Hayti). They also attempted to cut the cables between Santiago de Cuba (Spain) and Jamaica (British), and they succeeded in cutting one, but apparently it was a cable, which had been abandoned. (See "Incidents," pp. 23 and 46.)

Great Britain made no remonstrance against the cutting of the Manila-Hong Kong cable, or the avowed intention of the United States to cut the Santiago-Jamaica cables, if they could.

But no cable in the third category was cut by either belligerent, though Spain at one time talked of isolating the United States by cutting all the transatlantic cables.

These cables could not have been cut so as to isolate the United States except by cutting them between two stations of neutrals, and the suggestion that they might be so cut evoked some little comment in the press of this country. But no serious attempt was made to act upon the suggestion.

seas.

All the cables cut seem to have been cut in territorial waters and not on the high The Hong Kong-Manila cable was cut in Manila Bay; and in cutting the cable loops along the coast of Cuba the United States sometimes lost heavily from the fire of the forts.

It appears that the restriction of cable cutting by the United States to the terri- torial waters of the enemy was not accidental, but was founded on the deliberate opinion of the Chief Signal Officer-doubtless, in its turn, based on legal advice. In his report General Greely says: "Long before the expedition sailed the Chief Signal Officer had carefully considered the question of cable cutting, and had announced his official opinion that the destruction of a cable, even though the property of a neutral, was fully justified, provided that operations were confined within the territorial juris- diction of the enemy."

The whole paragraph which commences with this sentence is interesting, as

(See "Incidents," p. 46.) showing the view taken by the United States' authorities.

Professor Holland, the well-known authority on international law, in a letter to the "Times," expressed the opinion that the cutting of a cable between a belligerent and a neutral was lawful in territorial waters, but not on the high seas, and that under no circumstances was the cutting of a cable between two neutral stations permissible. (See "Times" of the 24th May.) The views and practice of the United States were in accordance with Professor Holland's dicta.

In considering the law as to the cutting of cables the analogy of the seizure of vessels carrying enemy's despatches naturally occurs to the mind. Indeed, the Law Officers to some extent founded their opinion on this analogy.

It is to be noted, however, that a private ship carrying despatches is only liable to seizure if found with the despatches on board. The analogy, if it should hold good, would therefore only justify the cutting of the cable at the time when the message was passing (obviously an impossibility), or the cutting of a cable by which messages were habitually sent. On the other hand, the cutting might, by analogy, clearly take place on the high scas, as the right to seize ships for carrying contraband is exercised more particularly there.

It is interesting to consider the question of compensation by the light of the supposed analogy.

It has never been suggested that the owner of a ship carrying the enemy's despatches could claim compensation for the seizure of his ship by the State affected— in fact, such an idea involves a contradiction in terms. The penalty he pays for serving one of the belligerents is the forfeiture of his property to the other.

Yet it has been suggested that the owners of a cable serving a belligerent, where such owners are subjects of a neutral State, have a claim to compensation against the other belligerent if as an act of war he cuts their cable; and it has even been discussed whether, if the cable belongs to the subject of the enemy, such subject may not have some claim to compensation on the ground that the destruction of private property, if not demanded by the necessities of war, is illegal. The Attorney-General of the United States, however, is stated to have rejected the claims of British companies to compensation, basing his ruling on the doctrine that the right of a belligerent to destroy

6714

B