The Washington herald., 1915-12-31
The Comfy of Nations.

Elihu Root has told the International Society
OF Law that the present has destroyed inter-
national law. In sense that is true. The war
has proved the futility of belief previously held
that all the nations could be relied on to abide
by certain rules OF tho game" against the die
tatcs OF military necessity. OF passion and OF
greed. But in the jurisprudcntial there has
never been such a thing as international law. What
VIC have been relying on is international morality.
and il is that that has proved to be nonexstent.
No doubts that Britain and her allies could be
relied 10 play the game it is understood.
France did so in 1870. Had she put necessity
above international law Sedan need not have been
Britain has repeatedly done to her detri-
mcnt, as for example in the OF the Alabama.
Both Russia and Japan kept the rules in the war
Of 1905.
At the very outset OF the present war, however,
Germany publicly took the stand that necessity
Was paramount to every other consideration. She
tore up the rules that had been the slow and pain
iul work of hundreds OF years and threw the pieces
in the face OF civilization. That she should follow
up her abrogation of the law OF nations on the
plea of necessity by complete abandonment OF
the dictates OF decency and humanity at the in
stance OF hatred and the lust to kill is not surpris-
ing For it is the conventions OF society alone that
keep men from being brutes.
In the face OF this condition the building up of
structure OF international law is dishearten-
ing business. For it is based upon the supposition
that the code OF international procedure shall
be enforced by the joint action of all parties there
to against any of their number who is guilty
Il a. inf, Rut hat ;st l..
is impossible to conceive of state of things more
sharply demanding the intervention of the civilized
powers, grossly violative of the accepted rules
of international behavior and the decent regard
for national rights than the invasion of Belgium
Yet the United States found no difficulty in stand
ing aloof, in excusing herself from interest in the
matter and looking the other way. We even man
aged to flatter ourselves that we were the cham
pons of the rights of neutrals and of international
law. Why should we suppose that the United
States will ever be any more willing to take up
the burden of enforcing law and decency among
the nations? Why should we suppose that with
our striking example before their eyes other ma
tions less able to bear the burden than ourselves
will ever be willing to assume it?
1t is all very we'll to blame it on the admins
tratlOn ana say ii IL ndQ OOlQly raised the
flag in the cause of international right the nation
would have rallied behind them. That is perhaps
true; but who deny that the course which has
been pursued when first enunciated to the people
of the United States struck responsive chord in
the heart OF the citizeni The administration NAV
be guilty but it is guilty chiefly of obeying certain
for the moment paramount impulses of the nation,
Today the people of the United States realize that
the nation is blamed in the eyes of the world And
we say to the government you were our leaders
but YOU did not lead!" But will not the first i'm
pulse of the people always be to refuse the burden
to seek the easy and profitable path? And will not
the leaders always, at least usually, be men who
will prefer expedieney to duty and follow the