The morning call., 1894-03-05
HARRISON ON INTERNATIONAL
LAW.


ernor Stanford to engage ex-President Har-
rison TO deliver course Of lectures on
internatI law at the University of
Palo Alto. For there is no branch OF law
which needs more elucidation than the
branch which governs the relations of ma
tons to each other, and there are few
hen living whose experience has enabled
them to master the subject as Benjamin
Harrison must have done.
International law differs from other law
in that it is embodied in no code and no
machinery exists to enforce its maxims. Ii is
merely BODY of rules suggested by equity,
accepted as binding by the nations and en-
bodied from time to time 10 treaties. Some
of these rules are so universally accepted.
as, for instance. the law of blockade, the
privileges of ambassadors and the rules
governing captures at sea during war, that
no civilized nation thinks of evading them.
Others again, such as the rule governing
contraband Of war, the limits of territorial
sovereignty, the right Of one State to in
teTfere in the domestic affairs of another
State, are still matters of debate which are
from time 10 time regulated by treaty.
But there is no force anywhere which can
enforce a treaty if one of the parties choose
to abrogate II. Thus the great body of in
ternational law consists of intern ational
covenants which, unlike other covenants,
do not need mutual consent Tor their
resiliation. And it is always an open Ques-
ton which rules of interna 'ional law are
absolutely binding and which are not.
When question of intern atioual law
arises. as when American revenue vessels
seized British sealers in Bering Sea. re-
course is had to the treatises on the SUBJ
iect Of these the earliest was the work
of GrOtius. who was followed by Puffen-
dOrf and Vattel, writers who applied the
principles of natural law to the practice of
nations; their labors were followed by the
decisions of LORD Siowell, Sir Robert Phil
lmore and others in England, and the
whole body of principles evolved was sum-
married. by our WheatstoDe, whose "Ele-
ments of International Law" IS the stand
ard work on the subject. But these sew
eral books are mere commentaries on a
law that is unwritten; they have no bind
ing force except in so far as the cases
quoted may be regarded as presidents and
the principles laid down may commend
themselves by their Intrinsic wisdom to
the respect of courts. Some day, perhaps,
the nations may agree to appoint commits
siOners 10 cOdify international law. and
may bind themselves to operate jointly
against the transsressor of the code. But
there Is no present prospect of any such
action, and the rules of international law
as laid down in the treatises are merely
obeyed by the nations at their pleasure
and as long as they choose.
The subject of treaties is involved in
much obscurity. When Russia was ready
she resiliaied the treaty of Paris of her
own mere motion, and served notice of the
resiliation on France and England. Eng
land accused her of breaking her bargain,
but she simply replied, What are you going
to do about it? The principle established
was that treaty was bargain which
either party could break at its pleasure.
Again, our Supreme Court has decided
that law of Congress may repeal a treaty.
Thus a covenant between The United
States and foreign power may be an
nulled by the legislative department in
this country without even notice to the
foreign power. The only remedy for the
party who suffers by the violation of the
covenant is war, which is a resort to primi-
tive methods.
What may be the subject of a treaty is
another branch of international law that
is obscure. The rule prevails among
Christian nations that no nation can in
terfere, under the provisions of a treaty,
with the internal or municipal legislation
of another. Thus a treaty between the
United States and England regulating the
internal revenue tax of whisky in this
country would be void. But the nations
of Christendom have treaties with China
and Japan regulating the tariffs on foreign
imports in those countries and comforting
upon foreign consu extraterritorial juris.
diction over offenses committed by OF upon
foreigners. Thusewe seem to have two
rules governing the proper subjects for
treates-one for people who can resist
aggression and one for people who cannot.
Ex-President Harrison will render A
service TO the science of law if he explains
in his lucid and philosophic language what
International law is and what it ought
to be.