Evening star., 1896-12-21

1S49, President Taylor's annual message
could only proclaim what would have been
the instructions, the Austrian minister was
ordered to take exception. He protested
accordingly. Daniel Webster had then be
come Secretary of State, and replied 20 the
protest in paper known IS the Hulsemann
letter. in which he declared what he be-
lteved to be the American policy, and the
law in regard to new natfonelities claiming
recognition:
OF course questions OF prudence natur-
ally arise in reference to new states
brought by successful revolutions into the
iamiiy OF nations; but it is not to be re-
CURED OF neutral powers that they should
await the recognition of the new govern
ment by the parent state. No principle of
public law has been more frequently acted
upon. within the last thirty years by the
great powers OF the world tnan this with
in that period, eight or ten Few states have
established Independent governments within
she limits OF the colonial dominons of
spain on this continent; and In Europe the,
same thing has been done by Belgium nd
greece The existence of all these govern
ments was recognized by some of the lead
inR powers Of Europe. rs we'll az by the
United states, before 1t was acknowledged
by the state from which they had separated
themselves. If. therefore, the United
states had gone SO far as formally to ac-
knowledge the independence of Hungary
aithough. as the event has proved, 1t would
nave been precipitate step, and one from
which no benefit would have resulted 10
either enhe par, party. 1t would not. nevertheless,
nave nave been an act against the law of ma
tons, provided they took no part in her
contest with Austria"
Thus on both sides the right to intervene.
both Tor and against the Hungarian seems
to have been claimed and not aynre,.J,,
denied by either; and no other mower q n,
pears to have offered even SO much opoosi-
non as was shown by President Taylor 10
lne principles or to the acts of Russia
which settled the course of history
Besides the four precedents Of Grsena
nelg um; Poland and Hungary. where new
rauonallties We're In question much
"a Iser humDer OF interventions occurred in
europe In the process of DISRUPTION or cor
sohdatfon. which has, On one hand. disinte-
grated the ancient empires of the sultan of
spain, OF the church. and on the other
Russia and Italy.
French Occupation of Rome.
lnterventions have occurred most con-
splcuously in Spain, by France In 1922. in
Portugal py England in 1927: again in
SPAN and Portugal in 1896. by England
and France, under what was called the
auaoruple treaty: in Piedmont and Naples,
py the Holy Alliance in 1921: and in go
many instances since 1913 that the mare
enumeration would be long and difficult
but none of the disturbed countries claimed
permanent independence under a form of
revolution. unless 1t were, perhaps the
states Of the church or Rome which on
Feoruary 8. 1S49. declared the pope to be
deposed. and set Up a provisional govern
m9nt Th under revolutionary triumvirate
Inc french executive, Louis Napoleon
gave another direction to the policy of
France He Immediately sent a French
army to Civita Vecchia which landed there
aprii tI 70. and after bloody struggle, drove
the republican government out Of Rome.
Inc French entered Rome July 3. Pope
P:us TX returned there In April. 1850. and
curing the next twenty years Rome re-
army.
Ihe only reason given by France in this
instance for Intervention was that the oc-
cupatlon OF Rome was necessary in order
70 maintain the political influence of
r rance Ihis was the ground taken by
President Louis Napoleon in explaining his
course to the chambers in 1850
Ihe British government acauiesced in
Inns inns RUE OF European law or practice. On
May y. 1851. Lord Palmerston, then foreign
secretary, said III parliament, in reply to a
formal inquiry, that the occupation of
rome was a measure undertaken by
france In her own discretion and in the
exercise or ner own judgment. The British
government had been no party to this
measure. France had exercised her own
rights In regard to it, and 1t was not at all
necessary that the previous concurrence of
the British govern ment should have been
obtained in this matter. The British gov
ernment lad been no party to this aggres-
sion and could not. therefore, be said to
nave concurred In It, 1t was a matter on
which they might have an opinion. but in
which they had no particular right, by
treaty or otherwise. to interfere"
Since the year 1927, Intervention in the
affairs OF the Ottoman empire has been SO
constant as to create body Of jurispru-
dence and long series Of treaties on which
the existence of all political systems of
southeastern Europe seems now to be more
or less entirely based
Not only Greece, Moater eero Roumania
Bulgaria. Roumelia. Servia and Egypt have
been the creations of such Intervention, or
the objects Of Its restraints, but also
Samos, Crete and even the Lebanon owe
their legal status to the same source
An authority SO great must assume some
foundation In law. seeing that the entire
world acQuiesced not only in practical ex-
ercise of the force. but also in the principle
on which 1t rested, Whatever that principle
was. The treaty of Berlin in 1878 was a
broad assertion of the right of the Euro
pean powers TO regulate the affairs Of the
Ottoman empire. but the treaty contains
no statement of the principle of jurispru-
dence on which the right rests
The preamble merely declares that the
powers being desirous to regulate, with
view to European order. the questions
raised In the east by the events of late
years. and by the war terminated by the
preliminary treaty of San Stefano have
been unanimously of opinion that the meet
ing OF congress would offer the best
means of facilitating an understanding"
So liberal a use of the right of interven-
ton has seldom been made. but the prin-
ciple Of Jurisprudence on which 1t rested
has never been officially declared.
These six precedents include, as far as
is known, every instance where a claim
to independence has been made by any
people whatever In Europe. since the close
Of the Napoleonc wars in 1915. Other sue
cessful revolutions. such as those of Tus-
cany and the states Of the church in 1859,
were the immediate results of interven-
ton. and that of Naples in 1850 from first
to last was perhaps the most striking ex-
ample OF intervention in modern times,
although Naples hardly thought necessary
to pass through any intermediate stage of
recognition as an independent authority.
The six precedents. therefore, constitute
the entire European law on the subject of
intervention in regard to European peoples
claiming independence by right of revolu-
ton. There Is no other authoritative
source Of the law: for the judicial courts of
Europe were bound to follow the political
decision: and the opinions of private per-
sons. whether jurists politicians, being
without sanction. could not accepted as
law.
From this body of precedent. it is clear
that Europe has invariably asserted and
practiced the right to interfere, both col
lectively and separately, amicably and
forcibly, in every instance, except that of
Poland, where a European people has re-
sorted to insurrection to obtain independ-
ence The right itself has been based on
yariolIa grounds. "Impedtmenta n cau,-