The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1871-03-27

outside hsrboi, plainly visible from the Executive
Mansion, Iemarked that &c could be seen ne had
that besides he was expecting other ferces (and in
TACT two other war-ships soon arrived, one OF them
monitor); and then he answered that, 'if any ves-
sells under Hsytien or Other flags were found in Do
mnican waters, he would sink or capture them"
Brave Rear Admirall The Interpreter, from whose
account am drawing, says that the President felt
very sorry and humlliated by this language, espe-
cially when the Rear-Admiral referred to the strong
forces under his command, and he proceeded to
reply !. 49,, ,. ,,o
ness al Of her dignity, haa taken note'of the COM
municaton, made in the name of the United States,
that under present circumstances, the Government
OF Hsyti would not interfere in the internal affairs
OF Santo Domingo, but the Government could not
prevent the sympathies OF the Haytien people to be
with the Dominican patriots, fighting against an-
nexion."
Black Republic appears better than the Rear
Admiral?
TWO PROPOSITIONS ESTABLISHED.
Such is the testimony establishing beyond ques-
ton the Two propositions first, that the usurper
Baez was maintained in power by our navy, to ena-
BILE him TO carry out the sale Of his country, and
Dor republic OF Hayti violently menaced, all
this being in breach OF public law, International and
In considering how far this conduct is a violation
Of International law and OF the Constitution OF the
United States, begin with the former.
GREAT rR1kC1PLE OF EQUALITY OF NATIONS vIo-
LATED.
International law is to nations what the National
Constitution is to our coequa States; t is the rule
State, ana also every citizen, has interest in up
holding the National Constitution, SO has every ma
tion and also every citizen an interest In uphoding
International law. AS well dsobey the former the
latter. You cannot do in either case without dis
turbng the foundations OF peace and tranquility
TO insist upon the recognition OF international law
is to uphold civilization In OF its essential safe
guards. To vndcate international law Is q constant
duty which Is most eminent according to the rights
Foremost among admitted principles OF interna-
toDal law is the axiom, that all nations are equal,
natural consequence, whatever is the rule for one
is the rule for all nor can we do to a small weak,
or black nation what we would not do to large,
strong or white nation nor what that nation might
not do to us. Do unto others as you would have
them do unto you, Is the plain law for all nations as
for all men. The equality of nations is the first
principle OF international law, as the equality of men
is the first principle in Declaration OF Indepen-
dence, and you may as well assail the one as the
other. AS all men are equal before the Law, so are
This simple statement is enough; but since this
commanding principle has been practically set aside
In the operations OF our navy proceed to show how
it is il ustrated by the authorities.
The equality OF nations, like the equality OF men,
was recognized tardly, under the growing influence
OF civilization Not to the earlier writers, not even
to the wonderful Grotius, whose instinct for truth
was SO divine, do we repair for the calculation Of
this undoubted rule. Our Swiss teacher Vatte,
prompted, perhaps, by the experience OF his own
country, surrounded by more powerful neighbors,
was the first to make it stand forth in its present
character. His words, which are remarkable for
their picturesque force as for their uridcal accuracy
state the whole case:
'Nations composed OF men and considered as so
many free persons living together in state of ma
| ture, are naturally equal, and inherit from nature
the same obligations and rights. Power or weak
ne ss does not in this respect produce any difference
M dwarf r. is Isl as , much man as giant; small re.
| powerful Kingdom. BY necessary consequence
Of that equality whatever is lawful for one nation
| is equally lawful for any other; and whatever is
uhjustiable in the one is equally so in the other"
| Vatel, The Law of Nations, Prelminaries, secs
| Is, 19).
Later authorities have followed this statement,
with some slight variety OF expression, but with no
1fpAin finr nf pf fhn rIfn
produce it was Sir William Scott in one OF his mas
tery Judgments lending to it the vivid beauty of his
| stye:-
"a fundamental principle of pubic law is the per-
feet equality snd entire independence of all distinct
States. Relative magnitude creates no distinction
| of right; relative imbec ity, whether permanent or
CASUAL gives no additional right TO the more power
amd a b se%ea e upon
| alton OF public law which 1t mainly concerns the
to IN @ Eon
DOdson hep, 243.)
The German Heffter states the rule more simply,
| but with equal force:-
'Natons being sovereign or Independent OF each
Her eaG ee on tt be ot tb %
rights as the strongest. In other terms each State
exercises in their plepitude the rights which result
from its political existence and from its participation
ill int eTn itional association (Hefer lie Droit In
| ternational, Liv. i, sec 27.)
The latest English writer's testify likewise. Here
| are the words OF Phillimore:-
"rhe natural equality OF States is the necessary
| companion OF their independence that primitive
| cardinal right upon which the SC ace OF interna-
| tiona law is mainly built" ''They are
entitled in their intercourse with other States to all
the rights incident to natural equality. NO other
State is entitled to encroach upon this equality by
arrogatiIg TO itself peculiar privileges or preroga
tives TO the manner OF their mutual intercourse.
| tPhlmore, nttrnatoDal Law, vol II. p 83)
Twiss follows Phillimore. but gives to the rule a
fresh statement
'.The independence OF nation is absolute and not
subject to qualification that nations In respect OF
s9er the ona are d
not in this respect give rise to any distinction
''lt results from this equality, that whatever is
lawful for one nation Is equally lawful for another
| and whatever is uDjusti1abe in the one Is equally
unjustinable in the other" (fwis, The Law OF Ma
| tions, p. H. Chap. i, sec. l29
| In our own country Chancellor Kent, great
authority, gives the rule With perfect cearness and
| "Nations are equal in respect to each other, aud
entitled 10 claim equal consideration for theiT rights
| whatever may be their relative dimensions or
strength, or however greatly they may differ In GOV
ernment, religion, CT manners. This perfect equality
and entire independence OF all distinct States is a
fundamental principle OF public law" (Kent, Com
mentaries, Vol. /, p. 21.)
General Halleck, whose work is not surpassed by
any other in practical value, while quoting espe-
caIly Vatte and Sir William Scott, says with much
| sententioUsness:-
relative power, are in the eye OF international law
equal, being endowed with the same natural rights
bound by the same duties, and subject to the same
obligations" (Halleck, International Law, chap. v,
sect lD
the whole together present the equality OF nations
ored.
The record already considered shows how this
principle has been openly deted by our Government
In the treatment OF the Black Republic of Hayt
first, IN the menace OF war by Admiral Poor, aad
secondly, In the manner OF the menace, being 10
substance and in form. In both respects the ADM.
raj did what he would not have done to a powerful
nation, and what we should never allow any nation
Hayti as weak, and the gallant Admiral rowing
ashore, pushed TO the Executive Mansion. where,