The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1896-08-27

are not yet part OF the law OF nations
In truth, neither doctrines derived from
what is called the law of nature lin any
of it's various meanings) nor philan-
thropic IDEAS, however just or humane,
nor the opinions of text writers. how
ever eminent, nor the usages of indl-
vidual states-none of these, nor all COM
bined, constitute international law.
But while maintaining this position l
agree with Woolsey when he says that
if international law were not made up
of rules for which reasons could be given,
satisfactory to mans intellectual and
moral nature it would not deserve the
name of science. Happily, those
reasons can be given. Happily, men
and nations propose to themselves higher
and still higher ethical standards. The
ultimate aim in the actions of men and
of communities ought, and | presume
will be admitted. to be to conform to the
divine precept, do unto others as you
would that others should do unto you.'
l have said that the rules of interna-
tional law are not to be traced with the
comparative distinctness with which
municipal law may be ascertained-al
though even this is not always easy.
| would not have it, however, under
stood that | should today advocate the
codification of international law 1t is
in Il state of growth and transition. TO
codify it would be to crystaliZe it; UNI
codited il is more flexible and more
easily assimilates new rules. While
agreeing, therefore. that indeterminate
points should be determined and that we
should aim at raising the ethical stan
dard, do not think we have yet reached
the point ut which codifcation is prac-
ticable or if practicable would be pub
lie good.
TENDENCY TOWARD HUMANITY.
Turning to the later tendencies which
characterize international law, which. he
said. were their greater humanity, Lord
Russell said
When Menelek, emperor of Abyssnia,
was recently reported to have cut off the
right arms and feet of 800 prisoners,
the civilized world felt a thrill of horror.
Yet the time was when to treat prisoners
as slaves and permanently disable them
from again bearing arms were regarded
as common incidents of belligerent cap
ture. Such acts would once have eX-
cited no more Indignation than did the
inhumanities of the African slave trade
before the days of Clarkson and Wiber-
force.
Let us hope that it is no longer pos
sible to do as Louis NV did i'll his
devastation of the palatinate or do as
he threatened to do, break down the
dykes and overwhelm with disaster the
low countries. Let us hope, too, that
no modern Napoleon would dare to de-
cree as the first Napoleon did in his
famous or infamous aeront brulees edict
of 1910. The force of public opinion is
too strong and it has reached a higher
moral plane.
A bare recital of some OF the important
| respects in which the evils of war have
| been mitigated by more humane customs
must suffice. Among them are: Q) the
| greater immunity from attack of the per-
| sons and property of enemy subjects in
| hostile country; (2) the restrictions i'm
| posed on the active operations of bellig-
| erent when occupying an enemy's coun-
| try; CO the recognized distinction be-
| tween subjects of the enemy, combatants
and non-combatants; a. the Difference
| accorded to cartels, safe conducts and
| flag of truce: 20 the protection secured
| for ambulances and hospitals and for all
engaged in tending the sick and wounded
of which the Geneva Red Cross convcn-
! ton of 1864 is notable illustration; 60
| the condemnation of the use of instru-
ments of warfare which cause needless
suffering.
In this field of humane work the United
| States took a prominent part. When
| the Civil war broke out President Lin
coin was prompt in intrusting Professor
Franz Lieber the duty of preparing a
| manual of systematized rules for the con-
| duct of forces in the ficld-rules aimed
| at the prevention of those scenes of cruel
| ty and rapine which were formerly a
| disgrace TO humanity. That manual
| has, | believe been utilized by the gov
ernments of England, France and Ger
| many.
Even more important are the changes
wrought in the position of neutrals in
war times; who while bound by strict
| obligations of neutrality, are in great
| measure left free and unrestricted in the
| pursuit of peaceful trade.
WAR IN THE AIR.
But in spite of all this who can say
| that these times breathe the spirit of
| peace! There is war in the air. Nations
armed TO the teeth prate Of peace, but
| there is no sense of peace. Our sover-
eign burthens the industry of his people
to maintain military and naval arma-
| ment at war strength and his neighbor
does the like and justites it by the exam
pie of the other; and England, insular
though she be, with her imperial inter
| ests scattered the world over, follows,
there be no war there is at best an arm
ed peace. Figures are appalling. [
take those for 1895. In Austria he an
nual cost of army and navy was, in round
numbers, f1S,O0O,OOO; in France, f37,-
100000; in Germany, f27OOO,OOO; in
Great Britain, f26000,0O0; in Italy, f13-
100000, and in Russia. $4,000, 900.
1t is no wonder that men-eanest
men-enthusiasts if you like. impressed
with the evils of war, have dreamed the
dream that the millennium of peace
might be reached by establishing a uni
versal system Of international arbitra-
ton. The cry for peace is an old world
cry. 1t has echoed through all the ages
and arbitration has long been regarded
as the handmaiden of peace. Arbitra-
ton has, indeed, venerable history of
its own. According to Thucydides, the
History of the Peloponnesian War.
Archidamus, King of Sparta, declared
that 1T was unlawful to attack an enc
my who offered to answer for his acts
before Il tribunal of arbiters.''
MOVEMENT FOR ARBITRATION.
In 1880 the senate and house of rep
resentativcs of the United States adopt-
ed concurrent resolution requesting the
president to make use of any fit occasion
to enter into negotiations with other gov
ernments to the end that any difference
or dispute which could not be adjusted
by diplomatic agency might be referred
to arbitration and peacefully adjusted by
such means. The British house of com
mons in 1893 responded by passing unan-
imouely resolution avnrncg;un &c .Io