The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1898-04-03

Gates of war that Spain must be held re-
sponsible to us for the loss of the Maine.
whether her government is to blame for 1t or
not. This proposition they will find it difficult
to support. But il even her negligence were
the cause of the disaster. her liability Is
questionable.
Does it occur to these gentlemen that the
rule they invoke works in either aspect OF
the case both ways? If Spain must guaran-
tee the safety of our ships in her ports.
whether herself in fault not we must
equally guarantee to her that armed eXpedi-
tons to subvert her government shall not BIS
lifted out and dispatched from ours. And If
negligence in the one is the criterion of
liability, it must be equally SO in the other.
We recovered $4,000 GOO from Great Britain
for the depredations of the Alabama. only
built. not armed, manned OF fitted out in that
country. on the ground that her government
was not vigilant enough in preventing the
sailing of the vessel. Is it to be doubted
that much stronger case of negligence
could be made out before tribunal of arbi-
tratlon against our government In respect to
these expeditions?
SeIf-Defense Not Involved.
In this quarrel between Spain and her rebel
subjects, without reference to it's merits and
conceding to the insurgents all the virtues
which are supposed to attend rebellion
against constituted government except when
it attacks our own. have we in the first place
any interest Of our own that justifes interior
ence. under the right of self-defense?
That claim was at first put forth on the
score of the interruption of our commerce,
but 1t has been abandoned. 1t is too well
settled to admit OF dispute that the incon-
venience and loss suffered by the commerce
of neutral states when exists, though
often considerable. constitute no ground for
| Intervention. but must be borne The loss OF
Great Britain in this respect is much greater
than ours.
When in our Civil war the Southern ports
were blockaded by the Federal fleets very
great loss to the commerce of other nations
n fhn 1rfa a@11
cotton. Yet no suggestion of interference by
those nations on that account arose, or would
have been tolerated. 1t must be conceded
then, and except by interested newspapers is
conceded, that we are under no necessity Of
self-defense against Spain in any definition of
the word, nor have we any right to vindicate
or wrong to redress that entities us to inter-
pose by arms In support of the Cuban rebel
lion.
War for Humanity's Sake.
The final ground upon which the preach
ers of aggression plant themselves is that
we must go to war for humanity's sake. It
mas generally been supposed that it was for
huinanltys sake that war is chiefly to be
avoided, and that the cause of humanity can
De IN no other way so well served.
IL IS true that international law recognizes
as the sole and rare exception to the rule
ABOVE stated in respect to intervention that
natlon may interfere where, to prevent I'M
]ustinabie slaughter and outrage in another
country. 1t becomes absolutely necessary But
this exception, which has very rarely been
acted on, applies only in extreme and very
clear cases, and has APPLICATION whatever
to this case :
1t is worth a moments consideration to
understand distinctly what the demands of
humanity" in the present case are, and
what they are likely to bring to pass if COM
piled with. Are they reason, or an excuse?
motive, or the pretense that conceals a
motive?
The suffering that it is said we are called
upon to redress by fire and sword is the
restitution that has oyertaken a part of the
cuban people, and which has been depicted
IN the most inflammatory colors. They are
snose VINO are called the reconcentrados-peo-
pie whose homes, plantations and indus
tries have been destroyed in the course of
the rebellion, and who are now gathered in
temporary shelters provided by the Spanish
government.
How came these people in that condition.
and who wrought the destruction that brought
them to it? They are represented to us as
body OF patriots who are STRUGGLING for
freedom and whose property and livelihood
have been destroyed in that struggle If
inns Is true. then the reason for inter-
ference In behalf OF the rebels against their
government is that they have not succeeded,
are getting the worst of the contest and are
thus reduced to Distress
NO one pretends that Spain had not the
right to put down the rebellion The com
plant is that she has net put it down. It
these people are to be regarded as rebels.
and their condition is truly depicted it would
seem that it results from their own fault
and that the contest, far as they are con-
cerned, has come to an end. Nor 1t be
maintained that any cruelty or outrage is
visited upon them by the Spanish govern
ment, or that their restitution results from
any other cause than the poverty that the
civil war has occasioned. as 1T generally does
and the inability Of the government to re-
lieye II fully