The Hawaiian star. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu]) 1893-1912, 1898-04-22
RIGHT OF INTERVENTION.

Whatever the result of the present
crisis between Spain and the United
States may be, whether war comes or
whether it does not. the basis or right
for such war should be thoroughly un-
derstood As has always been point
ed out in these columns. the loss of
the Maine. though intensifying the
feeling between the two states, is not
the cause of war, should it take place.
The question is the right of the Unit
ed States to intervene in Cuba.
The right of intervention has there
fore been very carefully looked up.
The Argonaut in an article which
which shows no research decides i'll
the negative. but the New York Times
publishes an exhaustive review of the
subject, and quotes largely from the
modern writer's upon international
law.
Heffter, in his European Folkright,
holds intervention to be justified in
four cases, the third of which direct
ly covers the case of Cuba. He says:
1T is an established privilege, by
common consent, to employ forcible
interference in order to set bounds to
an aimless state of war that may eX-
list within a country or between diff
ferent powers, in order thereby to re-
establish disturbed national relations
and to afford protection against con-
tinuing causes of disquietude; natur-
ally. also. so far as possible, to pre-
clude such purposeless conditions of
warfare
Woolsey, in his Introduction to the
Study of International Law, advances
that interference can be justified
'when some extraordinary state of
things is brought about by the crimes
of a government against its sub
jects.'
Phillimore. in commentaries upon
international Law" justifies among the
reasons for intervention the interests
of the belligcrent parties in IA civil
war" and quotes as authority the
Crimean war. where he considers the
intervention of France and England
was Justified by the open, notorious
and admitted insecurity of life and
property of French and English sub
jects commorant or resident in
Greece"
That Great Britain has acted upon
these principles is patent fact. Not
only in the Crimean war, but in many
cases in regard to the Independent In
dian States. Not long ago all the
States of Europe interviewed to stop
the needless slaughter of a civil war
in Crete. AS far as right goes, the
United States is perfectly justified by
international law for interfering in
Cuban affairs.
In Cuba there is an aimless state of
war, therefore there is justification
according to Hetfter's theories. In
Cuba there has undoubtedly been bit
ter crime committed by the govern
ment against its subjects, therefore
there is justification according to
Woolsey's theory In Cuba there has
been open, notorious and admitted In
security of life and property of Anne
rican citizens, therefore there is JUS
tification according to Phllimore's
theory.
These, of course, are no obscure
writers; they stand among the first
thinkers upon the principles of in
ternational law. People who talk about
the United States committing a crime
if she interferes in Cuba are talking
without due consideration of the bear
ings of the case. They are the di-
rect descendants of those who did not
consider it right that the North
should appeal to arms when Fort
Sumter was bombarded. The Unit
ed States has a perfect right to in
tervene. Whether it is policy to in
tervene is another question entirely.