New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1896-08-21
Grotius wrong when TO international law ne apphe"
Tho test snlacuit me GentibuS'?

MR. CARRIERS DIFFERENT OPINION.
These were points somewhat in controversy be-
tween nv learned friend Mr.. Carter, ana m!seil
before the Paris Tribunal of Arbitration in lSo ana
have recently received from him friendi! ihNi."
ton again TO approach them-ths time IN Juui0i''
rather than In a forensic spirit. have recohs'"eieu
the matter and after the best ccnsderation
can give TO the subject stand by the proposition
which in 1898 sought TO establish IN, ,nro
sition was that international law was neither NOR
nor less than what civilized nations have agreed
shall be binding on one another ~ @ a "a tbc a,
Appeals are made to the law of nature ana inc law
of morals sometimes as If they We're me , same
things sometimes as If they were QUEEN r. nrn@
tionai law and sometimes If they enshrned I'M
not only bari Of international law but. II may so
say to have been pre-ordained. 90 hot stoP "
ovn b Se ven to these phrasesthe law of nature
and the Lave Of morals HaruE 81, SIl aonNt onneol
10 both are 60 be found scattered loosely mere ana
there in the opinions OF Continental writer's.
Moraliss tell us that for the individual man lie Is
struggle to overcome nature ana IN earn a tSe
arbitrary rule of force and not or absract rsh' pI
Justice is the first assert itself In truth, INC
initial difficulty is fix what is meant by the Jaw
thing as the Jus Centrum of the Romans. when. l
need not remind you. Is not the same thlhs ~ Jus
inter Gcntcs- Clpian speaks OF the JUS nt,u,e as
that in which and animals agree Gr0tus uses
the term rs equivalent the JUS stricte dictun 10
be completed in the action Of good man or Ssa.S
by higher morality. but suggeStinS Lne ia
to which law ought to conform PuuendorI IN SHeV'
treats the rules OF anStidtt plOli'c -
rcstinc merely on unauthorized specuatons. as con-
stituiine International law and acquiring no addi-
he cuts off much of what Grot.us regards as law
Ortolan. in his Diplomatic &c IN MeI' cllcs MIN
than speaking Of so-called natural rights spTingmg
from so-callcd natural law: -
posed TO law as when IL Is said. for example. that
law cannot be opposed to natural right me WORD
rsst is recogn:zcd which attacks laws. upsets and
annus IT, In this sense. which is aptasonistc to
lew The word droit is the greatest enemy of rea-
son and the most terrible destroyer OF govern
mems ems .ooo, rs.son with fanatics armed with
natural right which each one understands as ne
fieid nothing' Withdraw nothing which is innex
HE az the same time that IL is unlnteIlislpIe
which IS consccraied In his eyes like dogma anG
which he cannot discard without cry. Instead OF
examining laws by their results, instead OF Judgmss
them to bc good or bad, they consider mem VIII. VIII
regard to their relation to this so-eaHed natural
sor Of experience all the chimoras OF their own
Ndsin also IN his work on Jurisprudence, al
ready mentioned. and referring to Pufendorf and
others of his school says .-..,,.a,
''They have COMPOUNDED positive International
morality or The rules which actually obtain among
civilized nations in their mutual intercourse win
rality as ID ought 10 be- with that indetorminate
something which they cal ne Law OF nStupT no tSs
FIRST Of the writers Oh the law OF nations who has
who has DISTINGUISHED the rules which ought to be
received in the intercourse OF ions or winch
would be received if they conformed to an assumed
so received. cndeavored to collect from the prac-
lice of civilized communities what are the rules
actually recognized and acted upon by them and
gave 40 these rules the name OF positive intcrna-
Finally, Woolscy. speaking of this class of writ
ers says they commit the fault OF falling to dis
tnguish sufficiently between natural justice and
the law OF nations. Of spinning the web OF sys-
legislators Of the world and OF negecting TO in
form what the world actually holds the law TO
he by which nations regulate their conduct SO
much for the law Of nature.
THE APPEAL TO THE LAW OF MORALITY
What are we to say of the appeal to the law of
morality? 1t cannot be affirmed that there is a
universally accepted standard of morality. Then.
what Is TO be the standard? The standard Of what
nation? The standard of what nation and in what
age?
Human society is progressive-progressive let US
hope. TO higher. purer. a more unselfsh ethical
standard. The Mosaic law enjOined the principle of
an eye for an eye; tooth for tooth. The Chris
we do good 10 those who hate us. But more; Ma
lions, although progressing let us believe. in the
passu one instance occurs 10 me pertinent TO the
subject in hand.
IL to-day the only great Power which has not given
It's adhesion to the principle Of the Declaration Of
other great nations of the earth have denounced
privateering as immoral and as the cover and the
fruitful occasion Of piracy. ! not all
cerned TO discuss In this connection whether the
United States were right wrong 1t would
not be pertinent 10 the point: but it is just to add
that the asserting Powers had scrupled
70 privateering in past times, and also that the
the practice If more complete immunity of private
property in time of war were secured.
Nor do nations. even where they are agreed
the inhumanity and immortality Of given practices.
national crimes. Take example of this the
slave trade. 1t is not too much TO say that the
demnaton of the traffic in human beings as un-
clean thng-abhorent to all principles of humanity
and morality-and yet they have not yet agreed TO
declare this offence against humanity and morality
10 he an offence against the law of nations. That
II is not so has been affirmed by English ana by
American judges alike. Speaking Of morality in
lake in his principles of international Law"
acutely observes that while the rules by which
arc alone properly to be considered international
law, these do not necessarily exhaust the ethical
than municipal law exhausts the ethical duties Of
man TO man: and Dir. Whewon has remarked of
1t is not desirable that they should be- cocxtensive
with morality. He SAYS the adjective right belongs
70 the domain of morality; the substantive right TO
the domain OF law.
NOT NATURAL OR MORAL LAW
The truth is that civilized men have at all times
been apt to recognize the existence of a law OF
morality more less vague and underlined. de-
pending upon no human authority and supported by
no human external sanction other than the APP
proval and disapproval of their fellow-men. yet
determining largely for all men and societies Of
men what IS right and wrong in human conduct
and binding. As is sometimes said, in foro con
scientific This law of morality is sometimes treated
as Synonymous with the natural law. but sometimes
the natural law is regarded as having wider
sphere including the whole law OF morality 1t can
not be said either of tionai law or Of nu-
nicipal law that they include the moral law nor
curatoly strictly that they are included within it,
il is truism 10 say that municipal aw and inter
national law ought not 10 offend against the law of
morality. They may adopt and Incorporate par
ucular preccpts OF the law Of morality; and on the
other hand. undoubtedly, that may be forbidden by
the municipal or international law which in itself
Is In no way contrary TO the law Of morality of
nature. But while the conception Of The moral
law law Of nature excludes all idea Of dependence
human authority il Is OF the essence of munich
pal law that its rules have been either enacted or in
some way recognized as binding by the supreme
authority Of the State whatever that authority
may be-. and also is il Of the essence of inter
national law that its rules have been recognized
binding by the nations constituting the community
OF civilized mankind
We conclude. then. that while the aim ought TO be
TO raise high its ethical standard international law,
such. includes only so much Of The law Of morals