New Ulm review. (New Ulm, Brown County, Minn.) 1892-1961, 1896-01-01

W. w Ns%oOO4 . Nl14N
are simply certain rules of international
conduct and comfy accepted by the CT
vilized nations regulating their inter
course with each other, and in force be-
cause they appeal to the reason of civil.
lized man, but with none of the usual
sanctions of law to enforce them.
When those principles called interna-
tional law are violated by any nation
through some gross injustice or wrong
to another after fruitless negotiation, the
final resort or means of redress is BY
war. There are certain we'll known de-
positories Of the principles that consti-
tute the laws of nations, and it has be-
come the usage of modern nations for
that purpose to consult certain eminent
riters on that subject, whose reasoning
is generally regarded as convincing in
regard to those subjects. Among those
who are recognized as authorities on
what constitute International law are
Putfendorff, Vattel, Grotius, Wheaton,
| Lawrence, Davis and host of other emf
nent men of that class in both hemis-
pheres. %s
Mr.. Lind IS entirely mistaken when
he says there are no courts in which
these laws are administered. That is
one Of the we'll known duties of prize
courts, in which the principle question
determined is whether the captures haze
been according to the laws of war which
constitute one of the branches of inter.
national law, or the laws of nations
Courts of admiralty also administer that
portion of the laws of nations which re-
lates to the navi cation of the high seas,
and administer punishment for piracy
which is crime against the laws of ma
tons, though it is also punishable by
the municipal law. It is not necessary
to cite other examples of the jurisdiction
of courts in disposlng of cases under the
laws of nations. The books are full of
such illustrations. .i. & .
Now, as to the Monroe doctrine. No
single nation, no matter how complete
Its sovereignty may be can make a law
or announce a principle that will be
binding upon any other sovereign nation.
or people without their voluntaryja jaccep-|
tance or acquiescence in that pronounce
ment. To illustrate this Prior to 1855,
privateering was lawful in time Of war
between all modern civilized nations.
At the congress cf Paris in 1856, Russia,
Great Britain, France, Turkey and Sar-
DINA, who had been participants in the
Crlmean war, made an agreement prohi-
biting the subjects OF. any of those pow
ers to engage in pr,vateering in any war
thereafter between themselves. They
also sought to induce the United States
to accede to that agreement through Mr..
Marcy, then secretary Of state, but our
government refused to accede to the
principle of abolishing privateering, and
the result will be that were war to oc.
cur between Great Britain and the Uni
ted States, growing out Of the present
dispute, privateering would be lawful
because the United States has never vet
accepted that modification of the laws
of nations. The Monroe doctrine was
national policy declared by the United
States through it's executive that has ne
YER received the sanction and approval
of the civilized nations of Europe, bv
the acceptance of their departments of
foreign affairs, by their diplomatic agen-
cles, or by their prize or admiralty courts,
or IN any sense or upon any occasion.
1t is the enunciation of national poll
cy which we regard as absolutely essen
tlal to our lf-dstense in the same sense
that England several hundred yea1s ago
declared It's right to the exclusive con-
trol Of all the seas surrounding that is
land, and especially the British channel
the island of Great Britain
from France, and this against the pro
test of f. all the nations of
Europe. England sought by its
admiralty courts and by its naval
power to perpetually confirm and estab
lish that pulley and principle as an ele-
ment o: international law applied.to it's
own interests, but the continentah ma
tions OF Europe refused to accede to it.
and England was eventually compelled
to recede from her position: It is not
necessary that the Monroe doctrine shall
ever be accepted by the other nations of
the globe to determine whether it is ex-
pedient for to enforce it. Wheh we
see that our national life and integrity