The daily morning journal and courier., 1898-05-16
COMMANDMENT QUESTIONS
Holy THE INTERNATIONAL LAW
 PROTECTS COAST ToWNS.

What Precedents tn History Show the
 Naval Policy of Laying Coast Towns
 gnder Ransom.
 MucS anxiety has been expressed of late lest in the event of war a Spanish fleet should be able to get within strik- ing distance of our coast towns and thus lay them under contribution. The fact has been overlooked that war is no longer a game in which ''all is fair,' but is now game which must be play ed acording to a rule, even though the rules be somewhat indefinite. In this connection a distinction must be made between fortified towns and those which are unfortifed. Scattered along our seaboard are many many unde- tended cities sufficiently large to offer a rich harvest for any hostile fleet able to lay them under contribution, pro- vided the laws of war permit such &C., tion.
 So far as the writings of modern pub licists go the rule is clearly laid down that unfortifled and undefended towns must not be attacked or besieged. Calvo, the greatest French authority, says that in no case and under no pre- text is the bombardment of such places permitted. He regards such an action as violation of the rights of human ity, and as contrary to the law of the nations which lead civilization. From English speaking authorities our own Professor Woolsey, of Yale, may be cited. He distinctly states that the bombardment of undefended towns is unlawful.
 Now it must be remembered that in- ternational law is a development of us- age, and many of it's principles never receive the definite sanction of the powers whose established customs con- stitute it's very indefinite code. This principle of the exemption of unforti- fled towns, however, is one of the few instances in which the principles laid down by theorists may be accepted as conclusive, because not only is it drawn from the growth of custom, but it has received the definite approval of the European powers. Article XIV of "The Report of the Conference of Brussels held in 1874, on the rules of military warfare, and signed by delegates from sixteen governments, reads thus: Fortified places are alone liable to be besieged. Towns, agglomerations of houses or villages, which are open or undefended cannot be attacked or bom- barded." Spain was a participant in this conference, the United States was not. This law was again adopted in 1880 by the committee of the Interna- tional Law makers.
 The present prevalence of fortifica- tions, however, points to a universal distrust of the observance of the doc Urine. This probaly arises from the fact that there is no means for! enforcement of the penalty for an infractipn of the rules of international law, except an appeal to force. The victorious party can always exact reparation for in fringement of the rules of war, but the vanquished has no such recourse.
 In the case Of the demolition of our undefended towns by Spanish vessels the fact that we should then have a le- gal right to indemnity is rather cold comfort, considering the financial con- ditinn of Spain. A more practical ques- tion is as to the probable restraining effect of the principles of international law upon the actual conduct of hostil- ities. This may best be gauged by reference to history. In the present century the principle of the exemption of unfortified places has been several times disregarded. In 1884 the United States ship Cyane bombarded Grey town on the Mosquisto coast, demol- ished the town itself and destroyed merchandise belonging to foreigners to the value of $25O, ,000. This act was done with the object of punishing the au- thorities for gross indignities and in- iuries to American citizens It was the subject of much adverse criticism, on the ground that the United States might have inflicted the punishment which was justly due in some less de- structive way.
 In 1866 the Spanish fleet bombarded the unfortified city of Valparaiso be- cause of an insult to the Spanish flag and the persistent refusal of the Chilian government to render any sat- isfaction. Opportunity was given the inhabitants to leave the town, notice WAS SlFclL tHctl elI pllVe1tC pIOpCl y would be respected as far as possible and a request was made that all churches and hospitals should be dis tinguished by flags, in order that the fleet might carefully avoid firing at them. Concerning this case, Calvo says that the Spanish government in pres- cribing a bombardment under these conditions acted contary to the laws of war, violated the rights of humanity, and moreover committed the wrong of injuring the interests of neutral more than those of it's enemies.''
 In 1879. Chili, then at war with Peru, forgetting all about the principles of international law it had proclaimed to Spain a few years caller, bombarded Pisagua, an open town, without artil- lery, without Notifications, without any defence. The town was utterly de- stroyed, and the act was rendered still more unjustifable by the fact that the object was simply the destruction or capture of some merchant vessels then in the harbor.
 Thus it will be seen that in the heat of conflict not much confidence can be placed upon the restraining effect of the principle of the exemption of un- fortified towns from attack. Moreover, the indications of more recent years ,,oipf tn moro ooppra1 dicroUar ,f