Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1898-04-13

common consent of the civilized world, and
which have done so much to mitigate the
kcrrors of warfare. So long as this gov
eminent abstains from such recognition,
Spain is entitled to insist that we agree
| with her that the Instruction is merely a
| reasonable riot and not forma! and or
ganized rebellion, ard that she is therefore
entitled to execute upon the insurgents and
upon American citizens. and all persons
uron the island, the penalties of a domestic
code which is an affront to civilization.
The United States has been in this atti-
| tude of concurrence ever since the begin
| ming of the war. 1t has. as consequence,
in spirit Of forbearanee, submitted to
many atrocities perpetrated by Spain upon
our own citizens. which. Under recognition,
would have had warrant in interna-
tional law and would have afforded just
grounds of procedure by this government
under it's acknowledged principles. Citizens
of the United States have been condemned
to death by military tribunals in violation
of their treaty rights. The expostulations
of this government have been in effect
merely petitions for royal ,clemency. The
Competitor prisoners, captured under our
flag. were imprisoned nearly sevente en-
months. and were never brought to trial.
though they were subjected to many harsh,
illegal and degrading preliminary examine
tons. The entire proceeding against them
was unlawful and in derogation of their
rights and of our honor. But as they were
technically, in the attitude which the Unit
ed States had assumed and had placed
them in refusing recognition of belligerency
or ind perdence, merely ordinary criminals
prosecuted by Spain under her domestic
penal code. this government 1t was logical
ly insisted by Spain had no right TO make
the question one of international oblga-
ton. 1t accepted royal clemency, and, in
thu person of it's citizens, received, pardon
for crime instead of demanding repara-
ton for violated right.
The United States has been compelled by
it's attitude of non-recognition to assist
Spain by its execution of our neutrality
statutes. If there is no war and the in
surgants are merely an unlawful confed
eracy of common insurrectionists, they can
have no legitimate commercial dealings
with the citizens of the United States.
Nor can the insurgents object to Spain
having such dealings of every character, in
Guiding the purchase of supplies, which,
had recognition been accorded would be
contraband of war and therefore not to be
furnished except through breach of neutral
an assistant of Spain. The supplies for
that power have been largely purchased in
this country. The unrecognized insurgents
have had no right TO complain. On the
other hand. they and their adherents have
been prohibited from making such pur-
chaSeS and from exporting any supplies,
however acquired. There has, therefore,
been no real neutrality by this government
throughout the entire business To thu con-
trary, Spain has been The customer of the
people of the United States, who have Sold
her, with technical lawfulness, everything
that she has required to repress by such
processes as We have indicated a people
struggling against tyranny for their liber-
ties. To prevent the insurgents from buy
ing or exporting at all, while Spain has
bought and exported to the extent of her
requirements. the navy and revenue YES
sells of the United States have been dill
gently and successfully employed. 1t has
been stated and We believe with entir, cor
RICHNESS, that this vigilance and policing of
the seas by the United States in favor of
Spain and against the insurgents has cost
TINS government more than s2,O0O000.
The Right of Intervention
The conflict of opinion and definition
among the jurists upon the subject of in
tervention is very great. Some of them de-
ry its existence as right under any cir
c0mstances, excepting of self-defense
against an imminent peril, while other
writers, of equal authority. maintain the
validity of its assertion as right for
cat ses which may be Inconsistent with that
great foundation principle of international
law. the equal and invioable sovereignty of
states.
the extremes of these opinions are repre-
sented by Guzot and Arntz. The former
declares that no state has the right 10
intervene IN the situation or internal gov
crnmens of another state. except only When
the inter, st of its own safety renders such
intervention indispensable
ArntZ maintains that the right of inter-
ventlon exists:
Il. When the institutions of one state
violate or threaten to violate the rights of
another state or when such violation is the
necessary consequence of its institutions
and the impoSSibility of an orderly coeXiSt-
ence of states results therefrom.
- VIE a government. acting entirely
within the limits OF its prerogatives of SOW
ereignty violates the rights of humanity
whether by measures contrary to the inter-
ests OF other states. or by excess of injus-
tice and cruelty which deeply wounds pub
lie morals and civilization.
The right of intervention is legitimate
one, be cause, however important may be
the rights of sovereignty and independence,
there is one thing of still greater impor-
lance, and that is tine law of humanity and
human society, which ought not to be out
ragged"
differences among the publicists are eX-
ccedinSly various and irreconcilable. Prof.
Hail, in his work on International Law cd
ed. p. 2SS. note -, in considering the opin
ions of modern international jursts who
touch upon humanitarian intervention says
that the treatment which the subject re-
ceives from them is merely fragrnentary,
notice being taken of some only of it's
grounds, which are Usually approved or
disapproved without clear reference to
general principle
Vattel Div. /. CHI. iv, $. so considers it
permissible to succor people oppressed by
its sovereign, but does not appear to sane
ton any of the analogous grounds of in
tervention Wheaton (Elem.. pit. IL. CHI. /,
S. 93). Bluntschli Is. 47S). Mamiani Up. S6),
give the right of aiding an oppressed race.
Heffter Is. 40, while denying the right of
Intervention to repress tyranny. holds that
so soon as a civil war has broken out
foreign state may assist either party en-
gagged in IL. Calvo Is. 1861 and Fiore q,
4t6) think that states can intervene to put
an end to slaughter.
Vattel says tbook ,. chap. 4, top p. 1871:
LAS to those monsters who. under the title
of sovereigns, render themselves the
scourges and horror of the human race
they are savage beasts. whom every brave
man may justly exterminate from the face
of the earth.
l.. ..-.-zl