The Great Round World and What Is Going On In It, Vol. 2, No. 23, June 9, 1898 | Page 7

* * *
Now that the Philippine Islands are to be kept by us, the previous regulations in reference to mails have been changed. When war was declared the Post-Office Department shut off communication with the Philippine Islands, as well as with other Spanish countries. A new order has been issued, and mail may now be sent to the Philippine Islands by way of San Francisco. In times of war this country permits soldiers to mail letters to their homes without prepaying postage; this is a great advantage to them, as we can readily understand that while on a campaign post-offices cannot be reached and postage stamps are not easy to get. The officers or men have simply to write on the letters, "Soldier's letter," "Sailor's letter," "Marine's letter," and they will be carried by post to their destination and postage collected there without extra charge. Under ordinary circumstances letters will not be carried unless partly prepaid; and if foreign postage is not fully prepaid a penalty in the shape of extra postage is added to the regular rate, and collected upon delivery.
* * * * *
European powers are watching with great interest our movements in the East. Admiral Dewey's victory, it is considered, has put an end to Spanish sovereignty in the East. European governments evidently expect the United States to keep the Philippines, and it is difficult to see any other solution, as it will certainly not be advisable to return the islands to Spain, nor would this be consistent with the "war for humanity's sake." Spain's cruelties in the Philippines have been even more excessive than in Cuba, and we certainly should not again place the islands in the hands of that cruel taskmaster, Spain. It has been suggested that we cede them to some European power; the question is, Can we do this? These powers are so jealous of each other that they will not stand quietly by and see any one of their number favored by a gift of such importance; on the other hand, the presence of an American colony in Eastern Asia will be a thorn in the side of the great powers; we have, therefore, to choose which horn of the dilemma we shall accept. The final settlement of the matter will, no doubt, cause many new complications and material changes in the traditional policy of our Government.
* * * * *
The mysterious sailing of the steamship Adria from Key West, a week ago, has attracted a good deal of comment; it is said that she had on board many miles of submarine cable, together with the necessary appliances for grappling, splicing, and laying, and telegraphic instruments for use on shore. It is believed that the purpose is to cut the cable off shore, splice a piece to it, and carry it to some unfrequented spot and there establish a cable station; this would enable our authorities to communicate quickly with Washington--when the invasion of Cuba takes place, or to keep the insurgents advised as to our movements.
* * * * *
A very interesting question of international law has been brought up by the cutting of the cables by Admiral Dewey; it is claimed that by doing this he has established an international precedent, for his cutting of the cable connecting a country at war with another country is a forcible interference with communication which has not been practised in any previous war.
The question of cable-cutting has never come up before as a means of offensive warfare, as it is only in recent years that there has been any extensive laying of cables. Dewey's example has been followed by the blockading fleet off Cuba; this fact establishes beyond all peradventure the position that this Government has assumed. The British Government evidently believes that in the time of war the right to cut cables connecting the opposing nation with other countries is one which may be assumed without violation of international law. In a speech on this matter, Mr. Balfour, First Lord of the Treasury, quoting in Parliament a few days ago an agreement made in Paris in 1884, in reference to the protection of cables by different nations, said: "By Article XV. of this convention, in time of war a belligerent signatory to the convention (that is, a county signing this agreement) is as free to act with respect to submarine cables as if the convention did not exist. I am not prepared, therefore, to say that a belligerent, on the ground of military exigency, would under no circumstances be justified in interfering with cables between the territory of the opposing power and any other part of the world."
Our State Department considers that this statement on the part of Great Britain commits that country to the policy regarding cables which we have recently