The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1901-03-19
Dissertation on the Boer War From the Latest Pen
Of Deceased Statesman.
HIS LOGIC AND CLEARNESS OF VISION
Are elI Shown Workable Possesses the Skill
Of Getting at Very Heart OF Things and Had the
Git Barring Great Truths So That They
Were Apparent to Even the
Casual Reader.

man armed keepeth his palace, his
goods are in peace" But strong is In
the positive; and this scripture tells
us what happens when a stronger
shall come upon him"
Taking the case there, however, as
one of British armed Intervention for
the correction of certain alleged evils
and expressions of Transvaal internal
administration, what has international
law to say about it? But is there an
international law? The nations have
never subscribed any codification.
There are commentators, but no statue
book. There are conventions between
two or more states, which. in few
specified particulars, regulate rights
and conduct. There are the moral law,
the decalogue, the law of nature; but
does the thou" Of these address itself
to states? There are precedents, but
is the nation that made them bound
by them. IL her interest has shifted?
Does the admiral of the strongest fleet
write the law Of the sea, not only for
his antagonist, but for all neutrals?
Is there a standard of personal clean
liness and domestic sanitation that is
determinative of the right of self-gov-
ernment? Has a strong power the
right to appoint itself trustee for
humanity" and in that character to
take over the lands of such weak ma
tions as fail to make the best use of
them? Is the rule that the trustee can
not take a profit inapplicable to "trus-
tees for humanity?" Does we'll
grounded fear that another nation is
about to appropriate territory to which
neither 1t nor we have any rightful
claim justify us in grabbing it first,
or in taking an equivalent seizure in
some other part Of the world? Have
we come, in practice, to the view which
Phillimore puts into the mouth of those
who say there is no international law:
"The proposition that in their mu-
| tual intercourse states are bound tC
recognize the internal obligations OF
justice, apart from considerations OF
immediate expediency, they deem
stupid and ridiculous pedantry. They
point triumphantly to the instances
in which the law has been broken, In
which might has been substituted fol
right, and ask II providence is not al
ways on the side of the strongest bat
talions. Let our strength, they say
| be the law OF justice, for that which
is feeble is found to be nothing worth.
That choleric Virginia statesman
John Randolph, in 1900, when the sub
ject of Great Britain's infraction of oul
neutral rights upon the sea was under
discussion, gave voice to the sam,
thought. What is national law" h,
said, "but national power guided b,
national INTEREST,"" And recen
Chinese writer says: "Internationa
law is set Of precepts laid down b,
strong powers to be enforced on veal
Ones."
Many questions relating to natura
rights are now regarded as outside tn
domain Of practical statesmanship
Has the American view changed
When we were feeble, questions tha
are now rather sneeringly called "aca
demic" were very practical, and tn
aspirations and sympathies that ar
now called sentimental" were tn
breath Of American life. Our diplom
acy was sentimental; it had a regar,
for weakness, for we had not forgotten
our own. Never did we fail to let 1t b