The Portland daily press., 1869-09-27
THE PRESS,
Monday Morning, September 81, 1862
Cub0 aud the Aluba mn ClaIms'

One circumstance powerfully checks the
flow of American sympathy with the Cubans
and makes the nation pause before taking |
any decisive action in the matter. The ma
tion is keenly sensitive to the aggravated |
wrongs it has suffered from the British ma
ton while in the throes of our civil war;
There Is fear that any action in favor of
the Cuban insurgents will be preiudlcial to
the success of our future negotiations for
PREPARATION. The nation has concluded that
it is right in demanding such PREPARATION, and
1t would be hard to convince an American
that any policy the effect of which would be
to justify the conduct of the English govern
ment could be otherwise than wrong. But
does this nation, in condemning the conduct
of England, tie Its own hands by policy of
absolute non-interference, so that we must
stand by inactive while the most narrow, SCI
fish, stupid and treacherous of European gov
ernments pours over its armies to crush out
an infant nationality just struggling into ex-
istence, and to re-establish middle are des-
potism at our very doors?
Avery brief examination will demonstrate
that the principle which would Justify us in
aiding Cuba cannot be invoked to save Eag-
land from retribution. Chancellor Kent thus
gives the law upon this point: at was stated,
on the part of the British ministry, in Parlia-
ment, by Lord Palmerston in 1S47, as a rule
laid down by writers on the law of nations,
that when civil war is regularly established in
country, and when the nation is divided in
to conflicting armies and opposing camps,
the two parties in such war may be
dealt with by other powers as if they
were separate communities, and that such
other powers may take part with one
side or the other, according to their sym
pathies and interests, just as they might
in a war between separate and Independent
nations" SSuch interference the Chancel-
lor adds, "however justfable and safe, will be
rare, and requires the exercise of eminent
discretion. Commentaries, VoL 1,
page Is. ..a..a- -e... .z.-... ...
Vattel sanctions the same doctrine. After
mentioning the right of nations in cases of
civil war to interpose their good Offices for the
restoration of peace he proceeds as follows:
'But if their mediation proves fruitless such
of them as are not bound by any treaty, may,
with view of regulating their own con
duct, take the merits of the cause into con-
sideration, aud assist the party which they
judge to have the right on its side. in case
that party requests their assistance, or ac-
cepts the offer of it, they are equally at lib
erty, say, 10 do do this as to espouse the
quarrel of one nation embarking in war
against another."-Vdtteps La,v of Nations,
p. 427.
The principle applicable to cases of this
kind seems to be that every nation in regula-
ting its own conduct may judge for itself
whether the organic unity of another nation
has been destroyed and may act on that judy
ment. Yet it does not follow that if the
judgment proves to be erroneous, and injuries
are produced by the error, the nation is not
responsible for the damages caused by the
mistake. As officer who has a right to serve
writ OF process is not exempt from respon-
sibility for injuries caused by blunder in
serving it. Such responsibility is absolutely
necessary as restraint upon the conduct not
only of individuals but of nations. Other
wise nconsiderate or malicious interference
win be completely sheltered from retribution
England judged this nation to be dismem-
bered because she wanted it dismembercd. |
The wish was father of the thought. Events |
have shown that she was mistaken and it is
no more than right that she should compen-
safe us for those injuries which can be traced
to that mistake. To condemn her conduct is
to condemn rash or malicious Intervention
between State and its rebellious subjects or
citizens. 1t is not to condemn a timely and
judicious Interference. The wrong committed
by England was not the adoption of an incor-
rect principle, but the misappication of a
correct one. To shun the error of England
we need not refrain entirely from interven-
ton, but only wait till the justice and propri-
ETY. of such step is beyond dispute.