New-York tribune., 1900-07-17
STILL NO WAR.

In the face Of one of the most dreadful TRACE
dies of the century ii is still to be maintained
that this country is not at war with China, and
sees no occasion for going to war eve speak,
of course. of war in the technical sense. invOly-
ing more or less formal declaration and sus-
pension of diplomatic reationsD That we are
not legally at war is evident from the fact that
Congress, the only competent authority, has not
declared war nor recognized a state of war. If
we We're to go TO war with China it would be
necessary for the President to summon Con
gress for its constitutional action. There seems
to be as yet no need Of that being done. The
United States flag has been insulted and United
States citizens including the United States Min
lister. have been murdered. That is a grave state
of affairs But it is not altogether unprece-
dented in our history; certainly not in kind, If
ii is in degree. In former cases the President,
rs President and as Commandern-Chief Of the
Army and Navy, has been able 10 vindicate the
flag and rescue, indemnify or avenge the
wronged citizens without any declaration of
war. There is no reason to doubt his ability to
do so at the present time.
II is true that acts Of a warlike character are
being committed. But they do not constitute
war. We did not declare war against Japan
when Commodore Perry Opened" that Empire
TO the world. We did not declare war against
military operations against those countries.
There must be a distinction between police work
and war. riot in the streets of New-York
may involve for it's suppression the use Of ps-
tolls and rifles and cannon in the hands of
policemen or soldiers but 1t does not constitute
civil war. A war against China would have to
be declared against the Government of that
Empire when the acts which provoked such
declaration had been committed by band OF in
surgents against that Government which the
Government was trying to suppress. Surely
there would be no justice or logic in that The
mob Of Paris in 1871 was as lawless and about
as savage in its conduct as the mob of Peking
But the other Powers of Europe did not on that
account declare against the Versailles Gov
eminent, which was trying to suppress that
mob And had there been any foreign interven-
tion it asuredly would have been in cO-opera-
ton with Thiers and his associates and not in
discriminatory against the whole French people
convincing answer to any unreasonng de-
mand for war should be found in the question
What is TO be gained by IT? For war is waged
for definite object. A declaration Of war i'm
plies a subsequent treaty of peace. What would
be the terms Of a treaty Of peace with China
after a war? We know what were the definite
objects of this country In making war against
Great Britain in 1776 and in 1872 against Mex
leo in 1916 and against Spain in 1898 But
what would be the object Of a war against
China now? Indemnity? The Chinese Govern
ment has not refused it. Territorial acouisi-
tiOns or sphere Of influence? It is not SIM
pOsabe that we want it. Disruption Of the EN-
pire? What would il profit us? There remains
nothing but sheer revenge. which, despite this
bdeous and incompatible provocation is a
motive unworthy Of any civilized Power The
sternest possible retributon for the horrors Of
Peking and the most ample amends for the
outrage upon the flag are legitimate objects Of