Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1898-04-30
COMMANDMENT QUESTIONS.
How Far international Law Protects
Coast Towns.
The Naval Policy Of Laying Coast Towns
Under Ransom.

SnOuIu DE dDIe TO get Wltnln SCflklflS
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 a game which must be
played according to rule, even though
the rules be somewhat indefinite. In
this connection, a distinction must De
made between fortified towns and those
which are unfortified. Scattered along
our Seaboard are many undefended
towns, sufficiently large to offer rich
harvest to hostile. fleet able to lay
them under contribution. provided the
laws of war permit such action.
SO far as the writings of modern pub
licists go, the rule is clearly laid down
that unfortified and undefended towns
must not be attacked or besleged.
Calyo. the great French authority, says
that in no case and under no preteXt is
the bombardment of such places per-
mitted He regards such an action as
n violation of the rights of humanity
and as contrary to the law or the ma
tions 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
usage. and many of its principles never
receive the definite sanction of the
powers whose established customs con-
stitute its very indefinite code. This
principle of the exemption of unforu-
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 1t drawn
from the growth of custom. but it has
received the definite approval of the
European powers. Article u of the
Report Of the Conference of Brussels,
held in 1874. ON the rules of military
warfare and signed by delegates from
IS governments. reads thus: "Fortlhed
places are alone liable to be besleged.
Towns. agglomerations of houses or
villages, which are open or undefended,
cannot be attacked or bombarded.
Spain was d participant in this con-
ference the United States was not.
This law was again adopted in 1880 By
the committee of the institute of in
ternational law which drew up the OK
ford code.
The theory then is very definite But
what of the practical aspect of the
question? 1t will at once appear that
if the principle We're universally acted
upon there would be no need Of fortify-
ing our Seacoast cities. Such measures
would simply invite commandment. The
present prevalence of Notifications,
however, points to a universal distruSt
of the observance of the doctrine.
This probably arises from the fact that
there is no means for enforcement OF
the penalty for an infraction 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
legal right to indemnity is rather cold
comfort considering the financial CON
dition of Spain. \ more practical
question is as to the probable restrain
ing effect of the principles of interna-
tional law upon the actual conduct OF
hostilities. This may best be gagged
by reference to history. In the present
of unfortitied places has been several
times disrcgarded. In 1884 the United
States ship Cyane bombarded Grey
town on the Mosquito coast, demolished
the town itself and destroyed mer-
chandize belonging to foreigners to the
value of $250.ooo This act was done
with the object OF Furnishing the
authorities for gross indignities and
,.iji
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 bomharded
the unfortified city of Valparaiso, be
cause of an insult To the Spanish iiaG
and the persistent refusal or the
Chilean government to render any sat
isfaction. Opportunity was given the
inhabitants to leave the town. nouce
was given that all private property
would be respected as far as possible,
and 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. CalNo
says that the SpaRiSn government III
prescribing bombardment under these
conditions. acted contrary to the laws
of war violated the rights of humanity
and moreover committed the wrong Of
injuring the interests of neutrals more
than those of its enemies.
In 1879, Chile. then ut war with Peru
forgetting all about the principles Oh
international law it had proclaimed tc
Spain few years earlier bombardeo
Pisa4ua. an open town, without artll'
lerN. without fortitcations. without ans
defence The town Was utterly de
stroyed. and the act was rendered stu
more unjustiiabIe by the fact that TIL;
object was simply the destruction ol
capture of some merchant vessels thef
in the harbor.
Thus il will be seen that in the hea
of conflict not much confidence can ~
placed upon the restraining effect u
the principle of the exemption of un
fortified towns from attack. MoreoVet
the indications of more recent year
point to more general disregard of tn
N principle.
The recent development of nava