St. Paul daily globe., 1895-11-18
CUBA AND THE POINT OF VIEW

us W Sell one uOlldl . WOI III VI OOAioo,
it is a pure chimera.
CUBA AND THE POINT OF VIEW.
We have had the Cuban question
presented to us from the partisan
Republican point of view, pursuing
the same tactics that they did in the
Hawaiian matter, assuming SYM
pathy they do not feel, caring only
to make a point against the foreign
policy Of this administration. The
point of view, however, from which
the situation must be looked upon
by the authorities in Washington is
that of law. Of this we have heard
but little. When, therefore, the Chi
cago Law Journal makes interna-
tional law in it's application to the
Cuban insurrection the subject mat
ter of its leading article, we look to
it with extraordinary interest. Pre-
sumably the article is from the pen
of it's editor, Mr. John Gibbons, who
is also a doctor of laws, and from
whom, therefore, one is led to eX-
pect some definite, precise informa-
ton in regard to the relation Of our
government to the Spanish insur-
rectionists in Cuba. One comes from
the reading of it with distinct sense
of disappointment, and feeling that
the lawyers know no more about it
than does the ordinarily we'll in
formed layman.
There is something told us of in
ternatfonal law, quotations from
Vattel and Grotius. The rule of in
ternational law in such cases is pre-
sented, with further facts showing
that this rule, like those of gram
mar, has about as many exceptions
as applications. The generally ac-
cepted doctrine is that where a state
of war exists between the people of a
province and their government, for
eign government should either re-
main a passive spectator, or, if it
deems diplomatic intercourse adviIsa-
BILE with those in revolt, it should be
only with reference to foreign rela-
tiOnS and not to domestic affairs
ton according belligerent rights to
revolutiontsts are distinctly stated,
and involve the assumption and
maintenance of position of strict
neutrality. The treaty of Washing
ton, by which the Alabama claims
We're submitted to arbitration, ex-
tended the ordinary rules governing
neutral nations; and, having been
proposed by this country, are bind
ing upon us. They require us to use
our power to prevent the departure
from our jurisdiction of any vessel
adapted to warlike use. Neither can
any belligerent he permitted to make
use of our ports or waters as a basis
VI iidN ol OpSI duIOllS, VI 10 I6CFuNI
men or to obtain supplies of arms
within our limits. We are bound to
exercise diligence to prevent a vio-
lation of any of these obligations.
But this leaves the fundamental
question entirely untouched as to
when an insurrection reaches a point
where a government is justified in
recognizing it's belligerency or in i'm
terfering in the contest For this
there are no set rules, and each par
ticular case Is left to the discretion
of governments which are supposed
to be actuated by considerations of
humanity or of self-interest. So we
come back from the legal point of
view no wiser than we went, so far
as concerns a knowledge of the legal
right or duties of the United States Ito
interfere in the insurreotion in Cuba.
1t leaves the matter simply where it
began, question of self-interest for
the government, aided or excused by
such appeals as the facts may war;
rant ito its humanity.