The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1898-04-11
THE RIGHT OF INTERVENTION

congress today on the Cuban question,
and that such message will result in
crossing of the Rubicon, either by the
president or congress; it viii be sure
to raise the question of the right of
intervention In the last number of the
Literary Digest, there is a very able
article on the subject and from it we
cite the various authorities on the sub
iect.
Heffter, a German authority, says in
PREVENTION is justified in these cases:
When it is permitted or requested by
the state interested, or in pursuance of
treaty guarantees; to protect revision
airy rights, as the right of succession to
the throne vested in the intervening
sovereign; and
1t is an established privilege, by
common consent, to employ forcible in
reference in order to set bounds to an
aimless state of war that may exist
within a country or between different
powers. in order thereby to re-establish
disturbed national relations and to af-
ford protection against continuing
causes of disuuietude; naturally, also,
so far as possible, to preclude such pur-
pOseless conditions of warfare.
Phillimore, the great English author
ity, holds that Intervention is justified
on the following grounds: Self de-
Tense, when the domestic institutions of
a state are inconsistent with the peace
and safety of other nations; the rights
and duties of guaranty; and the in
terest of the belligerent parties in a
civil war. OF the rights of Intervention
to stay the shedding of blood caused
by a protracted and desolating war in
another state he says:
This ground has been frequently put
forward, and especially in our own
time, but rarely, if ever, without others
of greater Importance and more legiti-
mate weight to support it; such, for
instance, as the danger accruing TO
other states from the continuance of
such q state Of things. or the right to
accede to an application from one of
the contending parties. As an aces
sorry to others this ground may be
defensible, but as a substantive and
solitary justification for intervention in
the affairs of another country it can be
scarcely admitted into the code of in
ternational law, since it is manifestly
open to abuses tending to the destruc-
ton Of the vital principles of that sys-
TEN of Jurisprudence.
T. ]. Lawrence. one of the very lat
est writer's on international law, says:
Intervention TO ward off imminent
danger is justifable. But we must be
careful that the danger is direct and
immediate, not contingent and remote,
and, moreover, il must be sufficiently
important to justify the expenditure
of blood and treasure in order TO repel
it. Further. the cause which
justifies Intervention must be important
enough TO justify war. Inter-
Vention in pursuance of a right to in
tervene given by treaty is justifiable.
Intervention to prevent or terminate
the Illegal Intervention or another state
is technically justifiable. In
PREVENTION to prevent or terminate the
illegal Intervention of another state is
justiiable. The rules we have
just laid down cover every case in
which Intervention is legal. With re-
gard to the second and third of them,
the justification is little more than
technical. 1t is only when a state in
tervenes to save itself from some grave
and imminent danger that weecan re-
criticism. In the opinion of some writ
ers interventions undertaken on the
ground of humanity ana interVentions
for the purpose of putting a stop to
religious prosecutions are also legal
But we cannot venture TO bring them
within the ordinary rules of interna-
tional law At the same time
it Will not condemn such interventions
if they are undertaken with a single
eye TO the object in view and without
Interior considerations of self-interest
and ambition. Should the cruelty be
so long continued and so revolving that
the best instincts of human nature are
outraged by it, and should opportunity
arise for bringing it to an end and re-
moving its cause without adding fuel
TO the flame of the contest there is
nothing in the law of nations which
will condemn as a wrongdoer the state
which steps forward and undertakes
the necessary intervention. Each case
must be judged on its own merits.
There is a great difference between de-
ciaring a national act to be legal, and
therefore a part Of the order under
which the states have consented to live,
and allowing it to be morally blameless
as an exception to ordinary rules.
Theodore S. Woolsey, professor of in
ternational law in Yale university, in
a review OF the Cuban situation. says:
These are the three justifying rea-
sons. then, for intervention-for the at
tempt, by national action, to neal this
open sore: the burden of neutrality;
the dictates of our commercial inter
ests; the call of humanity. Any one of
these is strong; together they are very
nearly convincing. And if our govern
ment should act upon them. / believe
the opinion of jurists would incline to
be that such action was warranted.
This, at least, was the conviction of
the present administration early in the
year. Because of its remonstranees
and wishes, there was made a change
of Spanish policy in Cuba. Weyler was
recalled, trade was made freer, and
system of autonomous government for
the island was set UP.
So far as its effect upon the insurrec-
ton goes. this change of policy has
been futile. Whether the condition of
the non-combatant population has been
bettered is an open question which our
consuls must answer. But it is clear
that the trouble remains; that the real
question is not materially altered. And
1 repeat the opinion that some form of
Intervention by our government is near
at hand, and would be justihable.
Professor Woolsey does not say that