The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1878-01-18
crime was committed. and arc delivered up TO
bis justice. tVattel book ., ohap.6. sec 10, 76.1
In section N vattel nfirms that

his justice. tVattel book .. ohHp.6. sec. 10. T6.t
Tn section N vattel nfT1rms that
The sovereign who refuses 70 cause e, ,r.epare.
lect or To punish the Offender or, finally. 70 de-
liver him IN. renders himself in some measure
IN aocomplice III the injury and becomes re-
Finally. there Ia another case where tho ma
lion in 9ene,,r.al ig guilty 2f tho crimes OF !ts
By tho maxims Of It's government. i accns-
( toms aud authorizes its citizens indiscriminate-
ly ~ plunder aud maltreat foreigners and to
sie ak The o p Ss Whoae aubeea are
robbed and mnssaered. and whose lands are
ihiotoa BY those robbers nGy 1ms eyel
Nay. more. Have right 70 enter mo u
League against such people 70 feprees in s VI
anti tn tres them as the common enemies o,
tic human race. ibid. sec. ~, aide page i64)
rhilmore says;
The. right Of self-preservatio9 is the FIRST
law OF nations ~ 1t l. Of indiyiduais. SO
olety which u not IA gondit1n 70 fepe LIZ ag
cipHi duty to the members OF which y ~ com
posed. and to the chief end Of It's institution
tPhillmvre on international Law. vol l. chap "
sis. We have hitherto. considered what meas
urgs nation is entitled to take tor the pre eos
III may happen that the same right may war
rant her IN extending precautionary measures
The borders OF her nelghbor's territory. For
intei national law considers tho right OF sell.
preservation or prior aud paramount to that q
Territorial invlo ability, and where they conflict,
justifles the maintenance OF tho former at tho
expense OF the latter right,
The case OF conflict indeed. must be indisput.
able penterfaidHd t,tce Gidrior, IN the language
III canoniHts. such o case. however. ia quite
conceivable. A rebellion or \ OWL commoiion,
2 Ii may happen, agitates a nation. while the AT
thnrities are engaged IN suppresslnE IT, bands
of rebula pasH tho frontier, shelter themselves
under tho protection Of the cutermtnoua, state,
and. from. thence. with restored strenath and
fresh appliances, r,new their inyaeions upon
the state from which they haye escaped. The
Invaded state remonsiraies The rem2nstrnnce,
whether frem favor to tho rebels or fsebleneHs
OF the executive, IL unbeeded, or ~ least the evil
complained Of remains unredreesed,
ss ~ law IN eroaena he
frontier aud In taking the necessary means for
her saiety wnother th,eS be the capture .r ds.
stronghold, az the exigenoes Of the case may
require. Hbid side pages 22g 227)
In illustration Of thie doctrine. baltimore re-
fcrs to the case OF tho Caroline on tho Canadian
border la 1888:
aiB--sIn all cases where the territory OF one
nation liz invaded from tho country of another
whether the invading foroe be composed Of the
Of tfe other country. or Of both the govern
mont. of the invaded country has right TO DO
satisfied that tho conn ry from Which the
Invasion has como has neither. by suffer
nnco nor reception. tpatentia ,aut recephttl
knowingly aided :, or. abetted u; She
must purge herself e poh these charge
government. the invaded country Ia warranted
IN redresstng her own wroag by entering tho
sr Ssc End a S ass bs se ess sss
been encouraged by the government. then the
invaded country has Q stri.t right TO make war
afforded not merely an asylum, but tho means
+ vi hostility ID tho foes Of u nation with whom
she was ut peace. For IL never can be main
from piratleal incursions, which the feeblene,s
of the executive government Of tho country
whence they emanate renders II tncapebe Of
erntnent shall voluntarily ack now edge the fact,
the Injured state has no right TO give itself that
Yon r s 70 oD III Wa e aS
nrnment In unable to guarantee.
IL must be admitted that there Ia practical
acknowledgment Of such imbeciity which rs
much as voluntary confession iustiaos. the
offended country In n course OF action which
would under other circumstance, be unlawful
i There is ., worry Important chapter both 10
Gr0tlus and In his commentator HeinecciuS.
entitled DE p0enaf1trn potInnunicafigne,' as to
when tue guilt OF malefaetor. and its conae.
s asa X sesoa i IL SY
considered with reference TO. tho responsibility
Of Statee for the CONDUCT Of thoir citizens. The
clpess"- are laid down with great precision and
unanimity. of sentiment by oil publicists. and
nro generally reduced TO two. az Will DO seen
lwho rereats the opinion OF Grodus and
Heinecciusl. -.
III CIVIL EQf1eEleR inc HHYBl. Wn8n n particular
governor OF the commonwealth IL sometimes
responaible for IL so that war may be declared
that kind of imputation we must necessarily
suppose one OF these two things sufIerance or
reception, w; Ethsr that ne SOVEREIGN has
that he has afforded q retreat to the criminal.
In the former case II must be laid down as n
apes y ns s Yno ha
they practise piracy on strangers and being
able and obliged TO hinder It. does not hinder 1t.
renders himsalf criminal; because he has con
scented to the bad action. the commission Of
which he has permitted. and consequently fur
pished D iust reason Of war. The two condi-
knpwledge and sufftranco of the sovereign are
absolutely necessary, the ono not being suffl-.
Client without tho other TO- communicate any
sovereign knows what his subjects openly aud
frequently commit: and as to his power of him
eumed. unless the want OF IL be clearly proved
stlbld. side pages 23o, 232
III support Of section 21a Mr.. Philimoro quotes
vHhel fibre 3, chapter T. sections 1873, 2ts; ibid,
bppk D. chapter 6, section "a
By tho ligbt of these great authorities. recog-
ninpd among all civiliz a peoples. do we desire
our rights TO be determined and our conduct to
lii nll The past history Of our rotations with
the republic OF Mexico. since annexation In 1916
and he of s tho civil
ment have been patient under wrongs inflicted.
have frowned upon all attempts at fliibustering
or violations of neutrality laws, and have pro
posed only to demand the rights which inter
national law aud comfy. accord to all nations.
Mexico has incurred the guilt of permitting
her citizens 70 set on foot expeditions to invade
the United States and to inilct upon the people
OF Texas all the horrors OF inhuman warfare.
and she has not properly endeayored TO restrain
them. All writer's on International law agree
that In such case the aggreved state has q
perfect right to enter the territory OF the offend
ing power and to eak up the illegitimate
combinations formed to wage unlawful warfare
upon her; and 1t IL no cause Of war the offend.
Inc state has no right to complain. because her
neighbor has been compelled to resort to meas
Mrts OF self-detense and self preservation.
phillimore claims that the offended nation need
not INQUIRE whether the offending state has the
ability to restrain her cftizsns. The naked fact
OF the incursions. murders and robberies. and
the use OF the territory Of the offending power
BY the robbers, juN titles the aggrieved nation in
resptting to Interior measures.
When our government directed Gen. Ord to
follow maruuders across the Rio Grande. Presi-
dent Diaz represented to be better affece cd to-
wards Americans than others having occepied
that Observation-Disclosures his officers to repel
force by force. Lerdo, the deposed President,