INSURGENTS. Rebels contending in arms against the government of their coun try who have not been recognized by other countries as belligerents. Insurgents have no standing in international law until recog nized as belligerents. When recognized as belligerents the rules relating to contraband and other rules of war apply to them, but until so recognized their acts are merely the acts of individuals which may be piracy or any other crime according to the circum stances. The United States and other coun tries have statutes regulating dealings with insurgents in other countries and filibuster ing expeditions, as they are called, and ex peditions to supply insurgents with arms and ammunition are forbidden; Snow, Lect. Int. Law 132.
In general insurgents have no belligerent rights. Their war vessels are not received in foreign ports, they cannot establish block ades which third powers will respect, and they must not interfere with the commerce of other nations. In the older books on in ternational law they were usually treated as pirates. Their hostilities are never regard ed as legal war. As late as 1885 in The Ambrose Light, 25 Fed. 4()8, this subject was discussed and the authorities fully reviewed, and it was held that the liability of a vessel to seizure as piratical, turned wholly on the question whether the insurgents had obtain ed any previous recognition of belligerent rights, either from their own or any other government. The court only refrained from entering a decree of forfeiture of the vessel, as a pirate, because of an implied recogni tion of the insurgents as belligerents, con tained in a letter of the secretary of state of the date of the seizure. In recent years, however, a certain amount of recognition has been accorded to insurgents. In 1894, when insurgents were bombarding Rio Ja neiro, Admiral Benham took the position that American merchant vessels, moving about the harbor and discharging cargoes, did so at their own risk. But any attempt on the part of the insurgents to prevent le gitimate movements of our merchant vessels at other times was not to be permitted. Of this official action it has been said: "This establishment of this point, which seemed to be the logical outcome of recent practice, almost recognizes an imperfect status, or right of action afloat, for insurgents ;" Snow, Legit. Int. L. 25.
In U. S. v. Trumbull, 48 Fed. 99, it was held that insurgents may purchase arms in the United States without violating U. S. R. S. § 5283, provided the arms are not design ed to constitute any part of the furnishings or fittings of the vessel which carries them. This case was a prosecution in connection with the Itata which was also libelled for forfeiture by the United States. There was much discussion as to the meaning of the word "people" as used in the statute. It
had been previously said to be one of the de nominations of a foreign power ; U. S. v. Quincy, 6 Pet. (U. S.) 467, 8 L. Ed. 458; and that a vessel could not be said to be in the service of a foreign people, etc., unless they had received recognition as belligerents; The Carondelet, 37 Fed. 800 ; the case of The Salvador, L. R. 3 C. P. 218, cited to the contrary, is distinguishable as resting on the broader provisions of the English foreign enlistment act; but in the Itata case the question was not raised by the facts, and it was simply held that the neutrality laws did not cover the ease of a vessel which re ceives arms and munitions of war, in this country, with intent to carry them to a par ty of insurgents in a foreign country, but not with intent that they shall constitute any part of the fittings or furnishings of the vessel herself ; and that she could not be condemned as piratical on the ground that she is in the employ of an insurgent party which has not been recognized by our gov ernment as having belligerent rights; The Itata, 56 Fed. 505, 5 C. C. A. 608. See also U. S. v. Weed, 5 Wall. (U. S.) 62, 18 L. Ed. 531; The Watchful, 6 Wall. (U. S.) 91, 18 L. Ed. 763; Snow, Lect. Int. L. 135.
In The Three Friends, 166 U. S. 1, 17 Sup. Ct. 495, 41 L. Ed. 987, the vessel was seized for a violation of U. S. R. S. § 5283, and was released by the district court upon the ground, inter a/ia, that the libel did not show that the vessel was fitted out and armed with intent that it should "be em ployed in the service of a foreign prince or state, or of any colony, district, or people with whom the United States are at peace." The libel was amended so as to read "in the service of a certain people, to wit, certain people then engaged in armed resistance to the government of the King of Spain, in the island of Cuba." The district court held that the word "people" was used in an individual and personal sense and not as an organized and recognized political power in any way corresponding to a state, prince, colony, or district. The supreme court reversed the decree, holding that the vessel had been in providently released, and that the word "peo ple" in the statute covers any insurgent or insurrectionary body conducting hostilities, although its belligerency has not been recog nized ; and although the political department of the government had not recognized the ex istence of a de facto belligerent power en gaged in hostility with Spain, it had recog nized the existence of insurrectionary war fare, and the case sharply illustrated the dis tinction between recognition of belligerency, and of a condition of political revolt. See