The times., 1897-05-24
Seeming Conflicts Between Inter-
national and Moral Laws.
DIR. KENT'S PATRIOTIC VIEW
Difficult to Reconcile the Fact
That a People Have the Right
OF Rebellion With LAWS MAKING
1T a Crime TO Aid the Oppressed
In Their Struggle for Freedom.

tional Law and Moral Law with special
reference To their bearings on the duty oil
this country toward Spain and Cuba.
He thought it generally conceded by all
but Spaniards that the present revolt In
Cuba, and the determination of her people
to have complete independence, have
ample warrant in the wrongs and injus-
tees which for nearly three-quarters OF "A
century Cubans have suffered under Span
fsh rule He held that they did not come
readily or easily TO any thoughtor separa-
ton or independence Like the coionists
OF Great Britain in this country, they were
long loyal at heart t. the old flag 1t was
only after many and frultlcss attempts
to secure their just rights; after SPAN
had betrayed their trust and broken her
promises over and over again, that the
bulk OF the people came to desire independ-
ence.
The cause OF Cuba, then, lie said, Is as
righteous, as deserving OF the sympathy
and support OF liberty loving, Jusuce-de-
string people as that for which the round
ers of this republic fought lndeed, ne
said, they had graver and more serious
cause for revolt than had any OF the col
onists of Great Britain.
This ne affirmed, seemed to be admitted
by all but Spanish writers. But, he SAID,
despite this concession as to the Justice
of Cuba's cause, men charged with Ihe
responsibility of shaping the course or the
nation, deny our right to give aid or com
fort i'm any way TO the Cuban insurgents
We are at liberty to aid Spain in any
way we please, TO perpetuate her con.
fessedIy barbarous rule over these people
without let or hindrance- But II we
venture to give material aid TO Cuba the
strong hand OF the nations authority is
laid upon us and we are treated as Grim
inals We are free to support the wrong,
but we hre not free to aid the right
1t would seem from this, said the speaker,
that international law and moral law are
at odds. And yet, he said it is the as
sumption of all authorities on international
law that so far as it has any right to be
at all it rests on moral principles. 1t
is not law in tile sense of being a com
mand issued by sovereign earthly au-
thority and sanctioned by penalties.
So far as il has any ground for being
the ground must be rational and moral.
1t must have behind it the authority Of
the universe and be supported by sanctions
wrought into the very constitution uf
man social or moral being, or it has
DO right to be. These rules thatare meant
to regulate the intercourse of nations, says
Prof Robertson in the Encyclopedia Brit
tanica, do hot depend for their authority
Oh the truth OF any special theories re-
garding their origin or sanctions The
rules (that is those universally accepted
as authoritative or binding), are in them
selves just and reasonable But the just
and the reasonable can arise only in hu-
man relations, and they denote normal
healthful relations. Human governments
have nopOwer to create law in any rational
sense OF the word. All they can do is to
discover and declare lin human language
laws that already exist, laws which men
need to obey ought to obey and must obey
IL they would live in just and happy
relations
A statute requiring conduct at variance
with individual and general interest is
not a law in the general sense of the word.
1t has no root in the nature of things.
meets no Individual or social need, but is
Iubversiveof aIlhuman interests, and ought
10 he repealed. MANY of the rules OF
International law says Prof Robertson,
kare vague, uncertain, and of disputed
authority But why? Because they are
pnly human regulations, founded on false
conceptions of human needs They have
no root in the moral order.
Such rules as relate to the treatment OF
prisoners of war, to the law of blockade,
and to the privileges of ambassadors, the
professor iDtimates, are accepted and ad-
hered to by all civilized states, but such
states are not greed as to what articles
should he contraband of war; or when n
state should interfere with the domestic
policy of another.
This ] take it, said the speaker, is be
cause our moral development is not yet
sufficient 10 see clearly, where self-in-
terest is SO largely involved, or even 10
act UP to our highest convictions. 1t
cannot be doubted that all permanent
law will be developed along
he lines of the great and the reason
able" 1t must rest on great moral pnn-
dples organized into the very structure
of human beings and human society
principles which all nations must come
TO regard and practice.
But how shall we reconcile this, with
tie fact that international law permits
us to support the wrong, when that
wrong represents the policy of a neigh
Dor nation; and forbids us to aid the
right, when that right represents a por
ton of such nation in rebellion against
unjust and oppressive rule? If we ad-
init that people have Just cause for re-
that they are in duty bound to
no 1ny
prove an international law which makes
It a crime to aid them in their struggle?
We cannot Such law or regulation has
no root in morals, and no right to he
A good nation ought to be as free
to take sides for the right DIS a goni
man. And q big, strong nation ought
10 feel the same sort Of obligation TO
give needed aid and Comfort to an OPP
pressed people fighting for self-govern-
ment, that a big, strong man feels TO
come to the rescue of a child struggling
In the grasp of a brutal bully No gov
ernment. has any right to he. save as 1t
serves the interest OF the governed. toy
ernments do not exist for the sake of the
few who hold the offices. They exist
for the sake OF all, including these. But
when they become subversve of the ends
for which they ought to exist. it becomes
the duty, not only of those who live under
them, but of good people everywhere,
to seek to reform or abolish them and
TO institute in their stead, forms promote
I've of the common welfare and happiness
Outsiders, indeed. hould not be too ready
.o mix in the concerns OF their neighbors.
Our neighbors should be allowed TO settle
their little differeifSses among themselves,
SO long as their qusrfels DO not attsie