The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1870-12-31
The Judicial Decisions Of War.

A Radical contemporary, between which
and this paper there is usually healthy
difference of opinion, declares that it is far
clcal to assume that war gives, as rule,
anything like an approach to judicial de-
s'cison," and announces that the history Of
the whole world shows that wars too often,
result in declaration Of the right OF might.
Taking the war between the United
States and the Southern Confederacy, rather
than the partition Of Poland, as forcible
example, it is not hard to understand that
might does overcome right, and that per-
sonal devotion and individual gallantry are,
too often, borne down by the brute weight
OF heavier guns and larger battalions. This
does not, however, affect in any way the
broad truth of the proposition which our
rascible contemporary scornfully rejects.
What we maintain is this: When all other
arguments fail, the logic OF "blood and
siron" remains. This is the last resort Of
opposing nations. They appeal to the wager
of battle, and it is demanded by humanity,
and by civilizatiol that they abide by the
result, as embodied in the treaty by which
the contest is closed There is no inter-
national tribunal which may try and decide
causes where the parties are mighty nations,
and war settles questions which, at present,
can be settled in no other way. The issue
of the war is the finding OF the court OF
arms to which the nations have recourse,
and, in this sense, it does partake OF the
nature of judicial decision. It is the best
Judgment that can be had, and, as such, it
is entitled to respect.
Nor do we object to take the war in
France as test question. 1t is not de-
MED that France was the aggressor In
Paris as in the provinces, the cry vas "On
sto Berlin !" The whole nation was eager
to seize the Rhine Provinces, and to dictate
peace under the lndens in the Prussian
capital. Germany took up the gage which
France threw down. The German Dattalions,
victorious in every engagement, drove the
French veterans before them until Napo-
leon laid down his sword, and his chosen
armies were slain, dispersed or prisoners OF
war. Now, the Germans besiege the French
metropolis, and the new leves, fight how
desperately they may, are shattered and
crushed by the ponderous legions OF the inva-
der All this France brought upon herself.
France is suffering the pangs which she de-
sired to inilict upon her neighbor, aud the
civilized world will require that tue treaty
by which the war is concluded shall
be faithfully observed by both the victor
and the vanquished Our contemporary
says that France will not abide by o treaty
made in the hour of her humiliation. This is
the one great difficulty in the way ofmakns
peace Germany went to war to protect
herscIffrom invasion and to maintain her ma
tional independence. The conflict was not
of her seeking, and when peace comes it
| will be in such shape that France shall not
be able, few years later, to rip open the
old wound, and attempt once more to lay
waste the fertile plains OF Germany. With
the example OF Russia and the threats OF
France before her eyes, Germany will not
content herself with paper guarantees as she
might have done were it admitted on all
sides that the sanctity of treaties must be
held inviolate. Bismarck will now insist
upon material guarantees in the form OF
money and territory Indeed, all the argu-
ments OF our contemporary, as well as those OF
Mr.. Mill and Mr.. Froude, only prove that it is
not generally for the interest OF victorious
belligercnt to content himself with the securi-
ty of covenants. The proposition that treaties
may be violated whenever it is convenient
is, therefore, clear disadvantage, in prac-
tice, to the weaker party to whom ii is de-
sired to give an excuse for breaking tho ma
tional parole.
They who lose the game must pay the for
felt. 1t was with this feeling that the South
ern people accepted the result OF the Con-
federate war. They do not, any the less
wish that they had been successful. They
know that wat is ntrinsically right cannot
by disaster be changed into wrong. But it
is their duty, aud their interest, to abide by
the judgment OF the tribunal of arms upon
the questions submitted for its decision
We do not pretend TO say that any treaty
of peace must endure forever. The plrlies
to treaty are, however, mutually Bound to
the observance of its stipulatlons, and,
while the one power faithfully fultils the
obligations Which it deliberately contracted,
the other has no excuse, before God or man,
for canceiliug the contract anu appealing to
the sword. No Que would have complained
had Russia requested u modification oil the
treaty of Paris upon the ground that The
course of events had made its provisions
dangerous or unnecessary. The wrong on
the part Of Russia was in arrogatinS to
herself the right of breaking a bargain,
which she hid deliberately made as her
only means OF escaping from the penalty OF
the war which her greedy ambition provok-