"A collection of rules by which nations and their members, respectively, are supposed to be governed in their relations with each other. In its exact sense law is a rule of propriety and of conduct described by sovereign power. Strictly speaking, therefore, as nations have no common superior they cannot be said to be subject to human law; but there is, nevertheless, a body of rules more or less generally recognized by which nations profess to regulate their own conduct toward each other and the conduct of their citizens, respectively. Being rules of propriety and of conduct, though not prescribed by a superior, they are somewhat loosely designated as laws, and taken together they form what is called 'International Law,' and as such are enforced by each nation separately upon persons and things within its jurisdiction.

This body of rules is derived from custom or treaty. From the earliest times there must have been some sort of rule, tacit or expressed, for the intercourse, however small, which must have existed between nations and must have begun with the beginnings of nations. We find, accordingly, in the oldest historical records, mention of messengers or embassies sent by nation or king to another nation or king and of compacts between them. As now existing, International Law is a science of which the major part is generally understood and accepted.

"There is no penalty except the inevitable distrust engendered which injures the standing of the nation breaking faith in the negotiations. Yet they are direct and serious blows to that good faith which is the basis of all human intercourse and progress. This is a weakness inherent to International Law destitute as it is of a recognized means of enforcement. In spite of this, however, states do fulfill their contracts as a rule, or by their laborious excuses, in case of violation, prove their desire to be thought faith-keeping."

(quote by David Dudley Field)

How It Grew

International Law, as we know it to-day, is a modern product. The first glimpses we catch of it in history show it in a very rudimentary form. The Orient was not likely to be a fruitful field for it, as the Asiatic had but little regard for individual rights ; the Greeks and Romans made good laws for themselves but were too powerful and contemptuous of their neighbors to devise an elaborate code for the guidance of their international affairs. Only after the destruction of the great ancient powers and the rise of several nations of nearly equal strength would the intercourse of nations be between equals; then we should expect to find, and do find it guided by established principles commending themselves to reason and conscience. International Law is not unchangeable, but keeps pace with human progress, and like any other law, serves to mark the advance of civilization. Prisoners of war are no longer put to death, enslaved, or held for ransom.

Holy Alliance

"During the occupation of Paris consequent on the Battle of Waterloo, the three rulers of Russia, Austria and Prussia, joined afterwards by the French king, formed September 26, 1815, the 'Holy Alliance,' which has been regarded as a league of absolution against the rights and the freedom of the nations. This famous league, however, at its inception, appears to have had no definite object in view. It was a measure into which the other sovereigns entered in order to gratify the emperor Alexander, whose romantic mind, then under the influence of Madame Krudener, contemplated a golden age in which the intercourse of nations should be controlled by Christian principles. The parties to the 'Holy Alliance' bound themselves, appealing to the Holy Trinity, to exercise their power according to the principles of religion, justice and humanity; to offer one another to one another on all occasions, aid and help; to treat their subjects and soldiers with paternal feeling, and to regard their people as members of a great Christian family whose guidance was entrusted to them by God.

"'The sovereigns each regarded,' they said, 'as a fundamental basis, their invariable resolution never to depart, either among themselves or in their relations with other states, from the strict observance of the law of nations, principles which in their application to any state of permanent place are alone able to give an effectual guaranty of the independence of each government and the stability of their general association.' The unmeaning nature of such declarations was shown not long afterwards by acts of interference."

In 1820 and 1821 revolutions broke out in rapid succession in Spain, Naples and Sardinia. The alarm excited by the revolutionary spirit was the occasion of convoking a congress at Troppan in Silesia in October, 1820, which was removed near the end of the same year to Laybach. Against the proposed intervention in the affairs of Italy the British government protested in strong terms, although the existing ministry were not averse to the suppression of revolutionary liberalism; while on the other hand the French government approved openly of the intervention in order to gratify the ultraroyalist party at home, but secretly dreaded the Austrian influence which such a measure would increase.

Austria, thus supported, sent an army into the Peninsula, overthrew the revolution almost without a blow in the spring of 1821, and brought back the old absolutism in all its rigor.

Soon after this, in the middle of 1821, a royalist insurrection occurred in northern Spain, to which France so far extended aid as to allow the insurgents to gather along the borders; to retreat in case of need across the line, and to make the preparation of gathering arms and money on French soil.

A congress had been arranged to meet at Verona when that of Laybach broke up. The principal measure here agitated was armed interference in the affairs of Spain, which, if undertaken, would naturally be the work of France. The British envoy, the Duke of Wellington, declared the refusal of his government to participate in any such proceeding, and also that England would not even attempt to persuade Spain to conform to the views of the congress. The French envoys, Montmorency and Chateaubriand, against the express instructions of their court, urged forward the intervention, which was supported by the other powers and energetically by Russia. A French army occupied Spain, overthrowing the constitution of Cadiz, to which the king, had given assent, and left him "free," but the country enslaved.

"No stretch of interference had gone so far as this, for Spain would have been a settled, constitutional government and probably settled peaceably unless the agitators had looked for aid to foreign powers." (Quote from Theodore D. Woolsey's "International Law.")

The real source of action of the "Holy Alliance" was not in the treaty drawn by Czar Alexander, but emanated from con(lyresses which were called at different times as occasion arose and seemed to demand them. Metternich, the able diplomat of Austria, made the alliance an instrument for some of his cleverest work.

Origin of the Monroe Doctrine

It is one of the ironies of fate that Monroe, a man of less force of character than any of his predecessors, and who did less than they to formulate certain principles of American policy, should, by mere force of circumstances, be associated with the principles, which have ever since borne his name.

George Canning, minister of foreign affairs of England in 1822, was anxious to secure the assistance of the United States to counteract the power wielded by the " Holy Alliance." Because of this, and not through any motives of disinterested philanthropy, he dropped a few diplomatic hints to the American minister at the English court. These bore fruit in the next annual message of President Monroe.

Already in 1791, 1801 and 1804, the principles had been foreshadowed by the utterance of our state department, and before venturing to take any decided action in the matter, Monroe not only laid it before his own cabinet, made up of eminent men, but corresponded with ex-Presidents Jefferson and Madison. Thus it may be said that the " Holy Alliance " is directly responsible for the enunciation of the doctrine that bears Monroe's name.

Monroe Asks Advice

Mr. Canning, in his correspondence with Mr. Rush, our minister in England in 1823, having suggested that the United States should take decided ground against the interference of the "Holy Alliance" in South America, Mr. Monroe sent the paper to Mr. Jefferson asking his advice. To this request Mr. Jefferson answered as follows:

Jefferson's View
MONTICELLO, Oct. 24, 1823.

DEAR SIR:

The question presented by the letter you have sent me is the most momentous which has ever been offered to my contemplation since that of Independence; that made us a nation; this sets our compass and points the course which we are to steer through the ocean of time opening on us. And never could we embark upon it under circumstances more auspicious.

Our first and fundamental maxim should be, never to entangle ourselves in the broils of Europe; our second, never to suffer Europe to intermeddle with cis-Atlantic affairs. America, North and South, has a set of interests distinct from those of Europe and peculiarly her own. She should therefore have a system of her own, separate and apart from that of Europe. While the last is laboring to become a domicile of despotism, our endeavor should surely be to make our hemisphere that of freedom.

One nation most of all could disturb us in this pursuit ; she now offers to lend aid and accompany us in it. By acceding to her proposition we detach her from the bands, bring her mighty weight into the scale of free government and emancipate a continent at one stroke, which might otherwise linger long in doubt and difficulty. Great Britain is the nation which can do us the most harm of any one on all the earth, and with her on our side we need not fear the whole world. With her then, we should most seduously cherish a cordial friendship, and nothing would tend more to knit our affections than to be fighting once more side by side in the same cause. Not that I would purchase even her amity at the price of taking part in her wars."

Mr. Madison being consulted at the same time, through Mr. Jefferson, answered as follows:

Madison's Opinion
October 30, 1823

DEAR SIR:

I have just received from Mr. Jefferson your letter to him, with the correspondence between Mr. Canning and Mr. Rush, sent for his and my perusal and our opinions on the subject of it.

From the disclosures of Mr. Canning, it appears, as was otherwise to be inferred, that the success of France against Spain would be followed by an attempt of the Holy Alliance to reduce the revolutionized colonies of the latter to their former dependence. The professions we have made to these neighbors, our sympathies with their liberties and independence, the deep interest we have in the most friendly relations with them, and the consequences threatened by a command of their resources by the great powers, confederated against the rights and reforms cf which we have given so conspicuous and persuasive an example, all unite in calling for our efforts to defeat the meditated crusade.

It is particularly fortunate that the policy of Great Britain, though guided by calculations different from ours, has presented a co-operation for an object the same as ours. With that co-operation we have nothing to fear from the rest of Europe, and with it the best assurance of success to our laudable views. There ought not, therefore to be any backwardness I think, in meeting her in the way she has proposed, keeping in view, of course, the spirit and forms of the Constitution in every step taken in the road to war, which must be the last step if those short of war should be without avail.

The "Doctrine" Enunciated

"From the seventh annual message of President Monroe, delivered December 22, 1823, the doctrine called by his name was thus expressed:

'In the wars of the European powers, in matters relating to themselves, we have never taken any part, nor does it comport with our policy to do so. It is only when our rights are invaded or seriously menaced that we resent injuries or make preparation for our defense.

'With the movements in this hemisphere we are of necessity more immediately connected, and by causes which must be obvious to all enlightened and impartial observers. The political system of the allied powers is essentially different in this respect from that of America. This difference proceeds from that which exists in their respective governments; and to the defense of our own, which has been achieved by the loss of so much blood and treasure, and matured by the wisdom of their most enlightened citizens, and under which we have enjoyed unexampled felicity, this whole nation is devoted.

We owe it, therefore, to candor and to the amicable relations existing between the United States and those powers, to declare that we should consider any attempt on their part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere, as dangerous to our peace and safely.

With the existing, colonies or dependencies of any European power we have not interfered, and shall not interfere. But with the governments who have declared their independence and maintained it, and whose independence we have, on great consideration and on just principles acknowleged, we could not view any interposition for the purpose of oppressing them, or controlling in any other manner their destiny, by any European power, in any other light than as the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition toward the United States.

In the war between these new governments and Spain, we have adhered and shall continue to adhere to this policy, provided no change shall occur which, in the judgment of the competent authorities of this government, shall make a corresponding change on the part of the United States indispensable to their security."'

A Policy, Not a Law

"It is to be borne in mind that the declarations known as the 'Monroe Doctrine' have never received the sanction of an act or resolution of Congress, nor have they any of that authority which European governments attach to a royal ordinance. They are, in fact, only the declarations of an existing administration of what its own policy would be, and what it thinks should ever be the policy of the country, on a subject of paramount and permanent interest.

Thus, at the same session in which the message was delivered, Mr. Clay introduced the following resolution: ' That the people of these States would not see, without serious inquietude, any forcible interposition by the allied powers of Europe in behalf of Spain, to reduce to their former subjection those parts of the continent of America which have proclaimed and established for themselves, respectively, independent governments, and which have been solemnly recognized by the United States.' But this resolution was never brought up for action or discussion. It is seen also, by the debates on the Panama mission and the Yucatan intervention, that Congress has never been willing to commit the nation to any compact or pledge on this subject, or to any specific declaration of purpose or methods, beyond the general language of the message."

Not Hostile to Monarchies

"It has sometimes been assumed that the 'Monroe Doctrine' contained some declaration against any other than democratic-republican institutions on this continent, however arising or introduced. The message will be searched in vain for anything of the kind. We were the first to recognize the imperial authority of Dom Pedro in Brazil, and of Iturbide in Mexico; and more than half of the northern continent was under the scepters of Great Britain and Russia; and these dependencies would certainly be free to adopt what institutions they pleased, in case of successful rebellion, or of peaceful separation from their parent states."

Its Principles

"As a summary of this subject, it would seem that the following position may be safely taken :

I. The declaration upon which Mr. Monroe consulted Mr. Jefferson and his Cabinet related to the interposition of European powers in the affairs of American States.

II. The kind of interposition declared against was that which may be made for the purpose of controlling other political affairs, or of extending to this hemisphere the system in operation upon the continent of Europe, by which the great powers exercise a control over the affairs of other European States.

III. The declarations do not intimate any course of conduct to be pursued in case of such interposition, but merely say that they would be 'considered as dangerous to our peace and safety,' and as ' the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition towards the United States,' which it would be impossible for us to 'behold with indifference; ' thus leaving the nation to act at all times as its opinion of its policy or duty might require.

IV. The declarations are only the opinion of the administration of 1823, and have acquired no legal force or sanction.

V. The United States has never made any alliance with, or pledge to, any other American State on the subject covered by the declaration.

VI. The declaration respecting non-colonization was on a subject distinct from European intervention with American States, and related to the acquisition of sovereign title by any European power, by new and original occupation or colonization thereafter. Whatever were the political motives for resisting such colonization, the principle of public law upon which it was placed was, that the continent must be considered as already within the occupation and jurisdiction of independent civilized nations." (Wharton's "International Law")

Animus of the Doctrine

"The Monroe Doctrine," however, was leveled not only against the " Holy Alliance," but also against Russia, for claiming the title to the territory on the northwestern coast of the American continent, from Bering Straits down to the fifty-first parallel of north latitude.

Excuses no Nation

"This doctrine is simply a presidential declaration of national policy; but as such, it has a strong hold on the mind and heart of the American people and has always seemed to our sister American republics as a great if not their greatest bulwark against European interference with their liberty and independence. Not a word, however, does it contain that justifies the belief that it was intended to relieve any American nation of its duty to meet all its obligations to European powers, or to prevent such powers from obtaining due satisfaction for any wrong they may suffer or any injury they may sustain in their intercourse with the American people.

Doctrine vs. Intervention

"What it does contain is two plain statements, the first one being to the effect that the European nations must not attempt to acquire sovereignty or to extend their monarchical system over any American territory in addition to that which they already possess; and the second one being practically a promise that the United States wil1 not interfere with the existing American colonies or dependencies of any European power.

"As the second is as clear a part of the Monroe Doctrine as the first, it would seem as if Congress has exercised much wisdom and foresight in refusing to make it law, for occasions might easily arise when it would be the duty of the United States to interfere in the American colonies of European powers; moreover, the right to interfere in proper cases in the affairs of adjacent nations is always too important to forego or surrender. (Bowen's " International Law.")

"In the United States and in the other American nations, the Monroe Doctrine is generally understood to be confined to the principles laid down in the first statement and directed against the European powers. That principle, however, is not an article of International Law, nor is it even, as has been stated, to be found in the municipal law of the United States. Its only practical value, therefore, is that it serves as a notice to European powers of the specific grounds on which the United States, will exercise the right of interfering to prevent them from acquiring or controlling any American territory that does not already belong to them. As a warning, consequently, it is timely and useful, and it has the special and admirable merit of being at once courteous and frank; but it does not give to the United States any right to interfere, and it cannot be doubted that the general right of intervention would alone be sufficient." (Written before intervention in Cuba. )

Intervention

The measures which one State takes to prevent injury to itself, arising from the political measures of another State, or growing, for some good reason, out of the other sovereign's conduct. Since all States are independent, the presumption is against the right of intervention. The principal legitimate causes of intervention are

(1) For the purpose of preserving the balance of power; that is, to prevent a State from gaining by political means or force an accession of power which would be dangerous to its neiohbors.

(2) To prevent changes in a form of government that would react upon the powers interfering. For example, a republican form of government in Austria would be distasteful to the adjacent monarchies. The action of the Holy Alliance in the application of this principle brought out the Monroe Doctrine.

(3) To promote the rights of humanity. In 1827 Great Britain and France interfered to prevent Turkey from utterly crushing Greece. In 1877 Russia made war upon Turkey, urging as a reason the atrocities of the Turks in Bulgaria. In 1895, Russia, France and Germany intervened in a protest to Japan to prevent the latter country acquiring territory in China where she would be a constant menace to Pekin. In 1897, Great Britain, Austria, France, Italy, Russia and Germany intervened to prevent Turkey from sending reinforcements to the island of Crete in which an insurrection was raging and landed marines to preserve order while they peacefully blockaded the harbor of Canea to prevent Greek sympathizers from entering the harbor with supplies for the insurgents. Later, at the end of the Turko-Grecian war that followed, they intervened to preserve to Greece the territory captured from it by the Turks and to abate the Turkish demand for money indemnity. A still later example is our interference in Cuban affairs.

War Growing Less Barbarous

The Crimean war was conducted on principles which were a marked advance over previous methods. It was closed by the "Declaration of Paris," to the principles of which all the nations of importance except the United States, Spain and Mexico have since agreed. The United States has often accepted all of it but the clause relating to privateering, and her objection to that was not that she wished to send out privateers, but that she was willing to go even farther and exempt private property on the high seas wholly from capture. The United States has not sent out a privateer in sixty years, and with the Columbia, Minneapolis, St. Louis, St. Paul, Yale, Harvard and other fleet cruisers that could be made commerce destroyers, there is not much inducement for her to do so. Further, commerce destroying would never put an end to any war. It serves only to annoy and irritate the enemy without crushing his military power.

Declaration of Paris, 1856

"Considering that maritime law in time of war has long been the subject of deplorable disputes; that the uncertainty of the law and of the duties in such a matter gives rise to differences of opinion between neutrals and belligerents which may occasion serious difficulties, and even conflicts; that it is, consequently, advantageous to establish a uniform doctrine on so important a point; and that the plenipotentiaries assembled in Conorress at Paris cannot better respond to the intentions by which their governments are animated, than by seeking to introduce into international relations fixed principles in this respect the above mentioned plenipotentiaries, being duly authorized, have adopted the following solemn declaration:

1. Privateering is and remains abolished.
2. The neutral flag covers enemy's goods with the exception of contraband of war.
3. Neutral goods, with the exception of contraband of war, are not liable to capture under an enemy's flag.
4. Blockades, in order to be binding, must be effective -- that is to say, maintained by a force sufficient really to prevent access to the coast.

Privateering. A vessel owned by a citizen of the United States and not by the Government itself, armed and acting under a commission called "Letters of Marque" empowering it to capture Spanish vessels, would be a privateer. Private citizens could thus embark in war simply as a speculation. In 1812, American privateers inflicted great damage upon English commerce; but the practice is coming into disrepute and is now thought to be little better than legalized piracy.

Neutral Flag. Goods belonging to a citizen of Spain, shipped in a vessel belonging to a neutral nation, would not be liable to capture by the United States unless the goods themselves were contraband.

Neutral Goods. Goods belonging to the citizens of a neutral nation, shipped in a Spanish vessel, would not be liable to capture by the United States if not contraband.

Contraband. Articles "contraband of war" are, in general, those which relate directly to the carrying on of war. To make them liable to capture two facts must be proved: first, their contraband character; second, their hostile destination. As to what articles are in themselves contrabrand there is as yet no general agreement, belligerents striving to stretch their war rights and neutrals desiring to extend their trade rights. The neutral State is not bound to protect its subjects from trading in contraband articles; that burden lies on the shoulders of the belligerent." *Woolsey's "International Law."

Blockade Defined

"The act of shutting out all trade by sea with certain specified ports or coasts of one belligerent by another."

"A neutral has a right to demand that these three essentials be observed:

1. Due notification must be given.
2. The blockade must be effective.
3. There must be an actual attempt to evade it or break through."

Notification." This maybe given in different ways; by diplomatic announcement to all neutral powers; by a warning to the blockade runner inscribed upon the register of the ship trying to enter.

"Effective." The amount of force necessary to make a blockade legal and effective is somewhat indefinite. It does not mean that occasional evasions of the blockade will vitiate it. It is enough that there is great risk of capture so as to make blockade running dangerous.

"Breach of Blockade. There must actually appear an attempt to break the blockade after it has been announced and made effective. The penalty of breach of blockade is confiscation of the ship, first, and then of the cargo, unless it can be shown that the cargo was not concerned in the act of the ship. No punishment can be visited upon the crews of the blockade runners." (Woolsey's "International Law.")

Secretary Seward's Position

Secretary Seward said, in answer to questions concerning the blockade of the Southern ports :

1. That the blockade will be strictly enforced upon the principles recognized by the law of nations.

2. That armed vessels of neutral States will have the right to enter and depart from interdicted ports.

3. That merchant vessels in port at the time when the blockade took effect will be allowed a reasonable time for their departure.

4. The Government cannot consent that emigrant vessels shall enter the interdicted ports."

"Temporary fortuitous absence of a blockading force, by which occasional blockade runners slip in, does not itself break up the blockade."

American Practice

The following extracts from Wharton's "International Law Digest" show what is the practice of the United States:

The carrying of letters or passengers to blockaded ports by neutral war vessels, entering by courtesy therein, is an infraction of neutrality. A vessel sailing ignorantly for a blockaded port is not liable to condemnation under the law of nations. No neutral can, after knowledge of the blockade, lawfully enter or attempt to enter the blockaded port; and to do so would be a violation of neutral character which, according to established usages, would subject the party engaged therein to the penalty of confiscation.

"The approach of a vessel to the mouth of a blockaded port for inquiry, the blockading having been generally known, is itself a breach of the blockade and subjects both vessel and cargo to condemnation.

"The liability of a vessel to capture and condemnation for breach of blockade ceases at the end of her return voyage.

"Thus it has ever been maintained by the United States that a proclamation of ideal blockade of an extensive coast, not supported by the actual presence of a naval power competent to enforce its simultaneous, constant and effective operations on every point of such coasts, is illegal throughout its whole extent, even for the ports which may be in actual blockade; otherwise every capture made under a notified blockade would be legal because the capture itself would be proof of the blockading force. This is, in general terms, one of the fundamental rules of the law of blockade as professed and practiced by the government of the United States."

--Marshall, Secretary of State, 1800

A Recognized Right

"The right to blockade an enemy's port with a competent force is a right secured to every belligerent by the law of nations. A belligerent may blockade the port of his enemy, but this blockade does not, according to modern usage, extend to a neutral vessel found in port nor prevent her from coming out with a cargo which was on board when the blockade was instituted.

"To justify the exercise of the right of blockade and legalize the capture of a neutral vessel for violating it, a state of actual war must exist and the neutrals must have knowledge or notice that it is the intention of one belligerent to blockade the ports of the other."

"In numerous treaties negotiated by the United States it is provided that notwithstandino, a diplomatic general notice of blockade, a neutral vessel cannot be condemned for blockade running unless she has notice en route that the place in question is blockaded."

A Declaration of Blockade

A PROCLAMATION.

Whereas, by a joint resolution passed by the Congress and approved April 20, 1898, and communicated to the government of Spain, it was demanded that said government at once relinquish its authority and government in the island of Cuba and withdraw its land and naval forces from Cuba and Cuban waters, and the President of the United States was directed and empowered to use the entire land and naval forces of the United States and to call into the actual service of the United States the militia of the several States to such extent as might be necessary to carry said resolution into effect;

Whereas, in carrying into effect said resolution, the President of the United States deems it necessary to set on foot and maintain a blockade of the north coast of Cuba, including all the ports on said coast between Cardenas and Bahia Honda, and the port of Cienfuegos on the south coast of Cuba;

Now, therefore, 1. William McKinley, President of the United States, in ordcr to enforce the said resolution, do hereby declare and proclaim that the United States of America have instituted and will maintain a blockade of the north coast of Cuba, including ports on said coast between Cardenas and Bahia Honda and the port of Cienfuegos, on the south coast of Cuba aforesaid, in pursuance of the laws of the United States and the law of nations applicable in such cases. An efficient force will be posted, so as to prevent the entrance and exit of vessels from the ports aforesaid. Any neutral vessel approaching any of said ports or attempting to leave the same without notice or knowledge of the establishment of such blockade will be duly warned by the commander of the blockading forces, who will endorse on her register the fact and the date of such warning and where such endorsement was made; and if the same vessel shall again attempt to enter any blockaded port, she will be captured and sent to the nearest convenient port for such proceedings against her and her cargo as may be deemed advisable.

Neutral vessels lying in any of said ports at the time of the establishment of such blockade, will be allowed thirty days to issue therefrom.

In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed. Done at the city of Washington this 22nd day of April, A. D. 1898, and of the independence of the United States, the one-hundred and twenty- second year.

By the President: WILLIAM McKINLEY
JOHN SHERMAN, Secretary of State."

At right, President McKinley.

Pacific Blockades

Since the beginning of the present century, what is called pacific blockades have been not infrequently used as a means of constraint short of war.

The first instance occurred in 1827, when the coasts of Greece were blockaded by the English, French and Russian squadrons, while the three powers still professed to be at peace with Turkey. Other light blockades followed in rapid succession during the next few years. The Tagus was blockaded by France in 1831, New Granada by England in 1836, Mexico by France in 1833, and La Plata from 1838 to 1840, by France, and from 1845 to 1848 by France and England; the Greek ports were blockaded by England in 1850, and Rio de Janeiro by the same power in 1862.

Since the last mentioned year no other instance occurred until 1884, when France blockaded a portion of the coast of Formosa. Finally, in ISM, Greece was blockaded by the fleets of Great Britain, Austria, Germany, Italy and Russia. Grecian forces in the Island of Crete were blockaded by the powers prior to the Turko-Grecian war.

"The manner in which these blockades have been carried out has varied greatly. During the blockade of Mexico by France in 1838, not only were Mexican ships held liable to capture, but vessels belonging to third powers were seized and brought in for condemnation. In the other early instances of pacific blockades the vessels both of the States operated against and of other powers were sequestrated, and were restored at the termination of the blockade, no compensation being given to foreign ships for loss of time and expenses." ("International Law," by W. E. Hall, page 386.)

US Rules of Warfare for Armies in the Field: Martial Law, Truces, Spies, etc.

Conference at Brussels, 1874

Delegates were present from all the countries of Europe. They drew up the following rules and regulations in regard to conduct of war, but did not formally agree to them in such a manner as to render them binding upon the countries they represented. The most of the rules, however, may be considered as good international law. They are further of interest as showing what Europe will expect our conduct to be when we occupy conquered territory.

1. A territory is considered as occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation only extends to those territories where this authority is established and can be exercised.

2. The authority of the legal power being suspended, and having actually passed into the hands of the occupier, he shall take every step in his power to re-establish and secure, as far as possible, public safety and social order.

3. With this object he will maintain the laws which were in force in the country in time of peace, and will only modify, suspend or replace them by others if necessity obliges him to do so.

4. The functionaries and officials of every class who at the instance of the occupier consent to continue to perform their duties, shall be under his protection. They shall not be dismissed or be liable to summary punishment unless they fail in fulfilling the obligations they have undertaken, and shall be handed over to justice, only if they violate those obligations by unfaithfulness.

5. The army of occupation shall only levy such taxes, dues, tolls, as are already established for the benefit of the State, or their equivalent, if it be impossible to collect them, and this shall be done as far as possible in the form of, and according to, existing practice. It shall devote them to defraying the expenses of the administration of the country to the same extent as was obligatory on the legal government.

6. The arm occupying a territory shall take possession only of the specie, the funds, and marketable securities, etc., which are the property of the State in its own right, the depots of arms, means of transport, magazines, and supplies, and in general, all the personal property of the State, which is of a nature to aid in carrying on the war. Railway plant, land telegraphs, steam and other vessels, not included in cases regulated by maritime law, although belonging to companies or to private individuals, are to be considered equally as means of nature to aid in carrying on a war, which cannot be left by the army of occupation at the disposal of the enemy. Railway plant, land telegraphs as well as the steam and other vessels above mentioned, shall be restored, and indemnities be regulated on the conclusion of peace.

7. The occupying State shall only consider itself in the light of an administration usufructuary of the public buildings, real property, forests, and agricultural works belonging to the hostile State, and situated in the occupied territory. It is bound to protect these properties, and to administer them according to the laws of usufruct.

8. The property of parishes, of establishments devoted to religion, charity, education, arts, and sciences, although belonging to the State, shall be treated as private property. Every seizure, destruction of, or wilful damage to such establishments, historical monuments, or works of art or of science, should be prosecuted by the competent authorities.

War

War does not extinguish debts due from the citizens of one belligerent to those of another; it merely suspends the remedy for their recovery.

After a declaration of war all intercourse is forbidden; an American citizen cannot lawfully send a vessel to an enemy's country to bring away his property.

Trading with an enemy does not ipso facto, forfeit the property so obtained by a citizen, but only subjects it to condemnation when regularly captured.

The citizens of one belligerent state are incapable of contracting with the citizens of another belligerent state. The effect of war is to dissolve the partnerships between citizens of hostile nations.

A sale by a belligerent of a warship in a neutral port is invalid, by the law of nations, as construed both in England and America.

Where private property is impressed into public use during an emergency, such as war, a contract is implied on the part of the Government to make compensation to the owner.

Declaration of War

During the Middle Ages and down into the 16th century, notice of war was almost always given to the enemy either by letter or by sending heralds. The practice gradually became less general until within the past 100 years a large majority of the wars which have occurred began without any formal notice whatever.

Civil wars by their very nature begin without such notice. With the present means of communication between nations there is less necessity for a formal declaration of war. Its chief purpose is to fix a definite time from which to date the beginning of hostilities and determine the legality of the capture of prizes or other acts of war and give general notice to neutral nations.

Spanish Declaration of War

"Diplomatic relations are broken off between Spain and the United States, and, the state of war being begun between the two countries numerous questions of international law arise, which must be precisely defined, chiefly because the injustice and provocation come from our adversaries, and it is they who, by their detestable conduct, have caused this grave conflict.

"We have observed with the strictest fidelity the principles of international law and have shown the most scrupulous respect for morality and the right of government. There is an opinion that the fact that we have not adhered to the Declaration of Paris does not exempt us from the duty of respecting the principles therein enunciated. The principle Spain unquestionably refused to admit then was the abolition of privateering. The government now considers it most indispensable to make absolute reserve on this point, in order to maintain our liberty of action and uncontested right to have recourse to privateering when we consider it expedient, first by organizing immediately a force of cruisers, auxiliary to the navy, which will be composed of vessels of our mercantile marine and with equal distinction in the work of our navy.

"Clause 1. The state of war existing between Spain and the United States annuls the treaty of peace and comity of October 2 7, 1795, and the protocol of January 12, 1877, and all other agreements, treaties or conventions in force between the two countries.

"Clause 2. From the publication of these presents thirty days are granted to all ships of the United States anchored in our harbors to take their departure free of hindrance.

"Clause 3. Notwithstanding that Spain has not adhered to the Declaration of Paris, the government, respecting the principles of the law of nations, proposes to observe, and hereby orders to be observed, the following regulations of maritime law:

"1. Neutral flags cover the enemy's merchandise, except contraband of war.

2. Neutral merchandise, except contraband of war, is not seizable under the enemy's flag.

3. A blockade, to be obligatory, must be effective viz., it must be maintained with sufficient force to prevent access to the enemy's coast.

4. The Spanish government, upholding its right to grant letters of marque, will at present confine itself to organizing, with the vessels of the mercantile marine, a force of auxiliary cruisers, which will co-operate with the navy, according to the needs of the campaign, and will be under naval control.

5. In order to capture the enemy's ships and confiscate the enemy's merchandise and contraband of war under whatever form, the auxiliary cruisers will exercise the right of search on the high seas and in the waters under the enemy's jurisdiction, in accordance with international law and the regulations which will be published.

6. Defines what is included in contraband of war, naming weapons, ammunition, equipments, engines and 'in general, all the appliances used in war.'

7. To be regarded and judged as pirates, with all the rigor of the law, are captains, masters, officers and two thirds of the crew of vessels which, not being American, shall commit acts of war against Spain, even if provided with letters of marque issued by the United States.

Duties of Neutrals

The latest laws of England defining her duties as a neutral, represent pretty well the general requirements of International Law. By these laws a citizen of Her Majesty's dominions is forbidden to do the following things:

1. Build or agree to build, or cause to be built, any ship with the intent or knowledge, or having reasonable cause to believe, that the same shall or will be employed in the military or naval service of any foreign state at war with any friendly state.

2. Equip any ship with the intent or knowledge, or having reasonable cause to believe, that the same shall or will be employed in the naval or military service of any foreign state at war with any friendly state.

3. Dispatch or cause or allow to be dispatched, any ship with the intent or knowledge, or having reasonable cause to believe, that the same shall or will be employed in the naval or military service of any foreign state at war with any friendly state.

The burden of proving that a ship built for and paid for by a foreign State and employed by it in naval or military operations does not come within the statutes, is thrown on the builder.

Changing Armament

To provide for a difficulty which arose in 1861-3, a penalty is attached to adding guns or equipments of war.

No person shall, by adding to the number of guns, or by changing those on board for other guns, or by the addition of an equipment for war, increase the warlike force of any ship which at the time of her being within the dominion of Her Majesty was a ship in the military or naval service of any foreign state at war with any friendly state.

Rights of a Neutral

A neutral's chief right is that its neutrality shall be respected. If it sustains unlawful Injuries, satisfaction for them should be given. For example, the stopping of the English steamer "Trent" by the United States forces was unlawful; the prisoners were surrendered and the act disavowed.

Fighting must not take place within a neutral's boundaries and if a vessel is captured in neutral waters, the neutral power may seize it and restore it to the owner, or if it has been taken to the prize court of the captor, demand that the captor return it to the owner.

Its diplomatic corps and consular officers shall not be molested and it may claim all the rights and privileges of neutrals on land and sea and make good its rights by force if necessary.

Indemnity

"No principle is better established than that a nation at war has the right of ' shifting the burden off itself and imposing it on the enemy by exacting military contributions. The right to levy these contributions is essential to the successful prosecution of a war in the enemy's country and the practice of the nations has been in accordance with this principle. It is as clearly necessary as the right to fight battles and its exercise is often essential to the subsistence of the army."* (* Wharton's " International Law Digest." Section 339.)

The expense of modern warfare has greatly increased the amount of indemnity or military contributions levied by the conqueror upon the unsuccessful power. The reasons usually urged for these are, that the conqueror has a right to levy contributions on the territory conquered to support his army and so this implies the right to repay himself for all the expenses of the war.

Further, by crippling the resources of the conquered nation, it is rendered more difficult for them to renew the war, and is a better guarantee of peace than a treaty would be.

An indemnity is a modern illustration of the proverb, "Might makes right."

There have been numerous examples of these exactions in history. Napoleon carried it further than any other leader of modern times; did not even respect works of art, which are usually considered exempt from such extractions, and his money tax aggregated many millions of dollars. France has suffered greatly from the reaction, as she paid 700,000,000 of francs in 1815 and 5,000,000,000 of francs in 1871 to Germany, besides losing her two provinces, Alsace and Lorraine.

In 18 7 7 occurred the war between Russia and Turkey, and as a result the conquerors obtained a large accession of territory in Asia and a money damage enough to cripple the resources of Turkey for many years. Much of it is yet unpaid, and Russia recently used with effect the threat of enforcing the payments due. The indemnity proper was 802,500,000 francs, with an additional amount of 26,750,000 francs for injuries sustained by Russian subjects.

In the Japanese war, by the treaty of 1895, China was to pay Japan 200,000,000 taels, (a tael is equal to about $1.40 in our money.) some territory, munitions of war, etc., with other considerations. Russia, France and Germany presented a joint note of protest to the Japanese government and would not allow her to take possession of the territory ceded by China, and 30,000,000 taels was accepted by Japan in lieu of the territory.

The war of 1897 between Greece and Turkey was settled by adjusting the boundary so as to give Turkey some strategic advantage, and Greece agreed to pay an indemnity or fine of 400,000 pounds sterling.

The Red Cross Society

Under this name as banded the benevolent societies of twenty-five different countries for the purpose of relieving the suffering in warfare of those enlisted either in the army or the navy.

To Monsieur Henri Dunant is due the credit of the initial movement in this direction. He was a Swiss physcian, who published a striking account of the appalling suffering he had seen in two military hospitals on the battle-field of Solferino. He was ably seconded by Monsieur Gustave Moynier, chairman of the Geneva Society of Public Utility, and Dr. Louis Appia, of Geneva. Their first movement was to "neutralize the sick wagons" -- that is, have the ambulances containing the wounded exempt from attack by an opposing force. They urged these views upon the different governments until an international conference was called at Geneva, Switzerland, in 1863, which formulated rules they considered proper for carrying on modern warfare. Since that time twenty-five or more nations have joined it, including all the nations of Europe, and even Persia, and one of our Western States has ceded the society a small tract of land, which by international agreement would be neutral ground if this country were invaded. The society, as a whole, is international, but it is made up of different relief societies, each of which is strictly national and governed by its own laws, rules and necessities.

The red cross was chosen as its emblem out of compliment to the Swiss Republic, in whose territory the first conference was held. The Swiss colors being a red field with a white cross, the badge chosen reversed the colors and gave it a red cross on a white field.

"There are no 'members of the Red Cross' but only members of societies whose sign it is. There is no 'Order of the Red Cross.' The relief societies use, each according to its convenience, whatever methods seem best suited to prepare in times of peace, for the necessities and sanitary service in times of war. They gather and store gifts of money and supplies, arrange hospitals, ambulances, methods of transportation of wounded men, bureaus of information, correspondence, etc. All that the most ingenious philanthropy could devise and execute has been attempted in this direction." They have abundantly proven their efficiency by their conduct during the Franco-German and Turko-Greek wars, while nearer our home their prompt action in the Johnstown flood, the relief of the reconcentrados and the wounded in the Spanish-American war, shows that the American branch is not behind its sister organizations in efficiency. Miss Clara Barton at the head of the society in this country is frequently called the "Florence Nightingale of America."

Articles of Geneva Convention

Article I. Ambulances and military hospitals shall be acknowledged to be neutral, and as such shall be protected and respected by belligerents so long as any sick or wounded men be therein. Such neutrality shall cease if the ambulances or hospitals should be held by any military force.

Article II. Persons employed by hospitals and ambulances comprising the staff for superintendence, medical service, administration, transport of wounded, as well as chaplains, shall participate in the benefit of neutrality while so employed and so long as there remain any wounded to bring in or to succor.

Article III. The persons designated in the preceding articles, may even after occupation by the enemy continue to fulfill their duties in the hospitals and ambulances which they serve, or may withdraw in order to join the corps to which they belong.

Under such circumstances, when these persons shall cease from their functions they will be delivered by the occupying army to the outposts of the enemy.

Article IV. As the equipment of military hospitals remains subject to the laws of war, persons attached to such hospitals cannot, in withdrawing, carry away any articles but such as are their private property.

Under the same circumstances, an ambulance shall, on the contrary, retain their equipment.

Article V. Inhabitants of the country who may bring help to the wounded shall be respected and shall remain free. The generals of the belligerent powers shall make it their care to inform the inhabitants of the appeal addressed to their humanity and neutrality which will be the consequence of it. A wounded man entertained and taken care of in a house shall be considered a protection thereto. Any inhabitant who shall have entertained wounded men in his house shall be exempted from the quartering of troops as well as from a part of the contributions of war which may be imposed.

Article VI. Wounded or sick soldiers shall be entertained and taken care of, to whatever nationality they may belong. Commanders-in-chief shall have the power to deliver to the outposts of the enemy, soldiers who have been wounded in an engagement when circumstances permit this to be so, and with the consent of both parties.

Article VII. A distinctive and uniform flag shall be adopted for hospitals, ambulances and evacuations. It must on every occasion be accompanied by the nation's flag. An arm badge (brassard) shall also be allowed for individuals neutralized, but the delivery thereof shall be left to military authority.

The flag and arm badge shall bear a red cross on a white ground. (Snow's "Cases on International Law," page 531)

Next: Chapter 8: Evolution of the Modern Navy