The daily morning journal and courier., 1898-05-16
NEW HAVEN MORNING JOURNAL COURIER. MONDAY M

fare, but there can be little doubt that it was seriously contemplated
 Thus it will be seen that the tendency of modern action and opinion has been
 away from the theory of the case. To
 cite the late Dr. Freeman Snow in his
 lectures to the students of the Naval
 War college: Notwithstanding all ar
 guments against it on the ground of
 humanity and also from the writing of
 nations it is probable that some con-
 tributions will be in use in maritime
 war, as they have been in times in
 land warfare. There is little doubt
 that, despite the signature of her dele
 gate to the report of the Conference
 of Brussels. Spain would not hesitate
 to lay our undefended towns under
 contribution had she the opportunity.
 In support of this acti she could quote
 the historical position of the United
 States which took no part in the Brus-
 sels Conference, and which, through
 Secretary of State Marcy, held that
 the bombardment of Greytown was
 sustainable by international law, and
 through Attorney General Stanberry
 even went so far as to render the decis-
 ion that the bombardment of Val
 paraiso by Spain, while "a measure of
 extreme severity, yet cannot be said
 to have been contrary to the laws of
 war;
 But what of fortified towns? May they be destroyed or may they be laid
 under contribution by threats of bom-
 bardment? On this point authorities
 differ, and practice has not been uni form. The Continental writers, aside from the Germans, declare against the
 practice. Fiori, an Italian publicist,
 says, with a superabundance of optim- ism, that 'bombardment is no longer a weapon of our times" Riquelme, a competent and impartial Spanish au- thority, says that "bombardment is
 condemned except when confined to Qualifications. Gratuitous destruction cannot be justifiable except when im- posed as a punishment upon babarous nations" Halleck, an English jurist, also takes this ground. He says that i've may demolish Actresses, ramparts and all structures solely devoted to the purposes of war, but we may not de- stroy public or private edifices of a civil character unless the destruction Is leCeSSdIy LO prevent llleUl lTOUl De- ing a protection to the enemy or is a | necessary thing to land siege. Ob- viously if the writer holds there is an end to the operation of fleets against cities, fortified or unfortifled, except for the purpose of landing forces suf- ficient to hold the place. There is no longer any pillage in war, and no city will pay contributions if the fear of bombardnent is removed.
 But there is high authority on the other side of the case. Woolsey holds that ''any means of assailing a fort may be used which are likely to be suc- cessful." Hall, one of the best of mod ern authorities, holds that the bom- bardment of towns in order to put pressure on their commander through | the misery of their inhabitants is sanc- toned by usage, though he adds that it | is a survival of barbarism which can- not be excused, and is a glaring viola l tion of the principle by which custom professes to be governed. This princi- pie is that the measure of permissible violence is furnished by the reasonable necessities of war-necessities, that is for the success of the operations.-Bos ton Transcript.