New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1904-01-07
PANAMA AND THE LAW.

There are few things more easy, and few
things more dangerous, than for the special
pleader to make appeal 10 international law for
the support Of his contentious 1t is easy for
him to do so, because the whole mass OF writ
ings on international law, from Francis de Vic
toria and before TO Robert Phillimore and after,
IS so vast and varied that it must indeed be an
extraordinary plea for which some support, or
apparent support cannot be found. 1t is, on
the other hand dangerous. because the other
side is just as likely to find in some equally
reputable authority 81 contrary opinion. There
are, Of course, many definitely established prin-
ciples In international law to which appeal may
confidently be made. But it is not to such that
appeal IS generally made, but rather to what
are merely the theories of certain writers or
commentators, which have no authoritative
force and from which other writers and COM
mentators may and do dissent
Note for example, the matter Of recognition
OF new states, over which critics Of the Presi-
dents policy IN Panama have been so shrilly
declaiming. at makes ones head swim TO try
to keep up with his inventions OF legal doctrine"
they cry; and they seriously aver that he has
IN such matters an entirely lawleSs mind. In
ternational law, they say, requires neutral ma
ton TO wait much longer than he waited before
recognizing the independence Of a new state.
Does # so? It would puzzle them, we imagine,
70 cite chapter and verse 10 prove it Doubtless
some writers say SO; but, then, others say the
contrary. In some cases nations have waited
longer; but IN others they have not. There is
no international compact upon the subject and
no rule established by common consent Pro
fessor Robertson, in 1.-THE Encyclopedia Britain
MICA" reasonably says: THE question is one of
fact. II the rebels have succeeded IN estab-
Fishing government It is the right and duty
'of the nations TO recognize the fact and each
nation must fudge for Itself tUhsther tho time for
-reco0nitioH has come" We must insist that the
United States has as good a right az any other
nation thus TO Judge for Itself and the fact that
practically all other nations in this case prompt
ly judged for themselves exactly as the United
States did is n pretty good indication OF the
Justice OF our judgment
That, Of course, is not all Of the matter.
Premature recognition is an aid TO rebellion in
consistent with the rules OF international law,
and the natural criterion is whether the old
government has in fact ceased to contend
against the revolutionary state. PRECISELY
cry the antiadministration casusts; so the
President has violated international law" Not
so fast. The same authority tells us that other
| nations are not bound 10 wait until the old
government has formally recognized the new
They are to be for themselves the judges Of the
facts, whether the old government has actually
ceased TO contend against the new one, and
| whether therefore. the tine IS proper for recog-
milton Moreover, what II the old government
never contends at all against the new one? It
would be absurd to say that other nations must