The sun. (Wilmington, Del.) 1897-19??, 1898-05-22
Eu,opean Powers. Article XIV

thus: Fortified places are alone liable
to be besieged. Towns, agglomerations
of houses or villages, which are open or
undefended cannot be attacked or bonn
barded.'
Spain was a participant in this con-
ference, the United States was not |
This law was again adopted in 1850 by
the Committee of the Institute OF Inter
national Law which drew up the Oxford
code.
The theory. then, is very definite. But
what of the practical aspect OF the ques-
ton? Il will at once appear that If the
principle were universally acted upon
there would be no need of fortlfying our
seacoast cities.
Such measures would simply invite
bombardment. 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 en-
forcement of the penalty for an infrac-
ton of the rules OF international law,
except an appeal to force.
The victorious party can always exact
reparation for Infringement 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 com.
fort, considering the financial condition
of Spain.
A more practical question is as to the
probable restraining effect of the prlncl-
pies of International law upon the actual
conduct of hostiities. This may best be
gagged by reference to history. In the
! present century the principle of the eX-
emption of unfortitied places has been
several times disregarded.
In 1884 the United States ship Cyane
bombarded Greytown, on the Mosquito
coast, demolished the town itself and
destroyed merchandise belonging to for
eigners to the value of $3.50, goo.
This act was done with the object OF
furnishing the authorities for gross indig-
mites and injuries to American citizens
1t was the subject of much adverse criti-
cism, on the ground that the United
States might have inflicted the punish
ment which was justly due, in some less
destructive way.
In 1866 the Spanish fleet bombarded
the unfortified city of Valparaiso because
of an insult to the Spanish flag and the
persistent refusal of Chilean Govern
ment to render any satisfaction. OPP
portunity was given the inhabitants to
leave the town, notice was given that all
private property would be respected as
far as possible, and a request was made
that all churches and hospitals should be
distinguished by flags, in order that
the fleet might carefully avoid firing ut
them.
Concerning this case, Calvo says that
"the Spanish Government i'll prescribing
bombardment under these conditions
acted contrary to the laws of war VIC
lated the rights of hum anity, and, more
over, committed the wrong OF injuring
the interests of neutrals more than those
of its enemies
In 1879, Chile, then at war with Peru
forgetting all about the principles of in.
ternational law it had proclaimed to
Spain few years earlier, bombarded
Plsague, an open town, without artillery,
without notifications, without any de-
fence The town was utterly destroyed,
and the act was rendered still more I'M
unsuitable by the fact that the object was
simply the destruction or capture OF
: some merchant vessels then in the
harbor.
, Thus it will be seen that in the heat o
conflict not much confidence can be
placed upon the restraining effect of the
, principle of the emptiOn OF un1OrtltieC
, towns from attack. Moreover, the indl
cations OF more recent years point to ;
more general disregard of the principle
!, The recent development of nava
/ strength makes the laying of coast cite
under contribution a most lmportan
;, means of harassing the enemy, and il
= actual warfare the article of the confer
ence OF BRUSSELS will probably be con
n veniently forgotten.
d In 1882 Admiral Auhe expressed th'
h opinion in the Revue des Deux Monde
d that the best policy for France in TIN
event of war with England would be tt
is use her fleets for the attack of coas
n towns, regardless OF Notifications, to la.
e them waste or to hold them mercllessl
e for ransom.
J. When Aube became Minister G
n Marine, a few years later, he was pei
TT mitted to change the shipbuilding polio
ot France to conform to his views. Th
British Government at once asked tn
French Cabinet whether this was its off
cial view The French Government I'M
mediately disavowed any official adoE
is ton Of this policy of warfare, but ther
can be little doubt that it was seriousl
contemplated.
Thus it will be seen that the tendenc
Of of modern action and opinion has bee
III away from the theory OF the case. T
k cite the late DR.. Freeman Snow in hi
rs lectures to the students OF the Naval Wa
College: Notwithstanding all argr
ar ments against it on the ground of human
is ity, especially from the writers of nt
De tions most likely to be affected it
,h probable that such eXactions of contr
IN buttons will be enforced in martini
)e war; as they have been in recent time
Sc in land warfare"
There is little doubt that, despite til
" signature of her delegate to the report {
TO the Conference of Brussels, Spain woul
lie not hesitate to lay our undefended towl
o. under contribution lad She the oppo
&C. tunity. In support Of this act she conl
quote the historical position Of the Unite
b. States, which took no part in the Bru
IN sells Conference, ard which, throug
MS Secretary of State Marcy, held that tt
o. bombardment Of Greytown was sustain
in able by international law, and throug
=, Ntt,rp,, I,on,ral Stnn harry nynp wont {