The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1908-07-26


tion of territory on the African continent
effective. In response TO this invitation
MIR. Kasson. then American Minister &C
Berlin. was authorized T. represent the
United States at the conference. After
ward Mr.. H. s. Sanford was associated with
him. Their course was practically left TO
their own discretion. with q caution that
it was not the policy Of the United States
to intervene In the affairs Of foreign ma
tons for the purpose Of deciding terri
torial questions between them. The fullest
liberty Of action upon the conclusions OF
the conference was reserved to the United
States. As we have seen, the general act
of the Berlin Conference (the act Of Feb
ruary 20. 1885, was signed on the part OF
the United States by Mr.. Kasson and Mr..
Sanford. but President Cleveland deemed
it inexpedlent to submit the treaty to the
Senate. The Unitbd States, however.
recognized the Independent State Of the
Congo as founded on the same general act
Of Berlin.
On July 2. 1890. a general act was signed
at Brussels for the repression Of the African
slave trade and the restriction of the inn
portation and sale OF firearms. ammu-
hAstoh eho bPiituoub l4uOib III O
defined zone OF the African continent. This
act was signed on the part OF the United
States by ME-. Fl. Terrell. American Min
lister at Brussels. and Mr.. H. s. Sanford.
who together represented the Washington
Government in the conference. The rep
resentatives were originally authorized to
assent to the conclusions OF the conference
only dd referendum. but afterward they
- aNA,;a4an-x snAAoI 90 alien Not
only was the treaty signed. but it was ap-
proved by the United States Senate on
January IL. 1892. with the declaration that
the United States disclaimed any interest
in the possessions or protectorates estab-
lished or claimed on the African continent
by the other Powers. We observe next
that on January "a, 1891 n treaty Of amity.
commerce and navigation was concluded
at Brussels between the United States
and the Independent States Of the Congo;
the ratifcations were exchanged on Fehu-
airy 2. 1892.
A review Of these doou' Tents should con-
vince the reader that the United States are
not bound to int. pose in the affairs OF the
Congo State.F 1
.."' III.
1t will be remembered that Japan has
been charged by Russia with having begun
the recent war in the far East without due
declaration Of her purpose. Touching this
question Mr.. Moore says on page Ill OF his
seventh volume that IL Is universally adj
mitted that a formal declaration is not
necessary to constitute q state OF war.
For example. our Com ress or February 2.
1902, passed an act for the protection OF
and seamen Of the United States
against the Tripolitan cruisers. which viz
tually, though not ostensibly. was q declara-
ton OF war against Tripoli. 1t is certain
that war followed and required O. treaty,
signed on June 4, 1906. to bring It to an end.
Then again on May II. i84e. President Polk
informed Congress by a message that Amer
lean blood had been shed by Mexican forces
on American soil and that consequently
wal existed by the act Of Mexico. BY an
act OF Congress, passed. two days later,
provision was made for carrying on the
conflict. Before the passage Of that act,
however, the battles Of Palo Alto and Resaca
de Ia Palma had been fought. Turning to
Japan, we find that on August 1. 1894, she
declared war formally against China and
the challenge was accepted In a counter
declaration issued by China on the follow
ink day. Hostilities. however. were already
in progress. On July rs a Japanese squad
ron had been engaged with Chinese mem
of-war' which had been conveying trans
ports carrying reenforoements to Asan In
Corea, and on July 20 Japanese troops had
captured Asan itself. A state OF war there
fore had existed between the two countries
as early as July rs.
Mr.. Moore points out that from the gen.
eral rule that a formal declaration Ia unnec-
essary an inference perhaps unwarranted
is often drawn. namely. that a nation may
lawfully or properly begin a war at any
time and under any circumstances with
or without notice. In its W absolute dis
erection. Such a theory seems to him alto
eether inadmissible. Although a contest
by force between nations may, no matter
how it may rave been begun. constitute
q state Of war. II by nc means follows. in
| Mr.. Moore's opinion. that nations in pre-
cipitating such a condition Of things are
not bound by any principles Of honor or
good faith. If. for example, he says
"a nation wishing to absorb another or
to seize a part Of it's territory should with
! out warning or prior controversy suddenly
attack IL a state Of war would undoubtedly
| follow, but Ii could not be averred that
the principles OF honor and good faith en-
| Joined by the law of nations had not been
violated In other words. to admit that
a state OF war exists Is by no means to
justify the mode by which II was brought
| about or begun. Nor is the practice Of
fraud and deceit which Is permitted by a
| state OF wal supposed to be admissible In
time of peace. Here we may recall a fact
sometimes overlooked, that in 1870 France
formally declared war against Prussia.
There were no prior hostilities.
On pages $3.50 Of the fifth volume
there is a short reference to the treaty OF
peace signed by representatives Of Japan
and Russia at Portsmouth on August %.
1905, but we have been able to find in the
work before US no allusion to the Anglo
Japanese treaty which was concluded on
, August 10 OF the Same year and which
up to 1915 (when unless previously renewed
the treaty terminates) will have 30 impor-
tant a bearing on our position in far Eastern
waters. Important because during the life
\ of that treaty Japan may at any time in