Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

The field of their operations is not necessarily restricted to the territory over which they exercise actual control.

Griggs, At. Gen., Aug. 24, 1898, 22 Op. 190.

Aug. 29, 1898, the French embassy at Washington, acting on behalf of the Spanish Government, represented that, according to advices received at Madrid, the insurrection was spreading and becoming more active in the Philippines, and stated that the Spanish Government thought that the situation might be remedied either by placing at the disposal of Spain for use against the insurgents the Spanish troops whom the capitulation at Manila had reduced to inaction, or, if the United States objected to that measure, by the dispatch of troops directly from the Peninsula to the archipelago.

The United States, in view of the fact that Manila was, some time before its surrender, besieged by the insurgents by land while it was blockaded by the forces of the United States by sea, declined to consider the first alternative, and, as to the second, said: "It will be a matter for regret if it should be adopted on the strength of rumors, some of which have been shown to be groundless, while others yet are unconfirmed. The Government of the United States will, through its military and naval commanders in the Philippines, exert its influence for the purpose of restraining insurgent hostilities pending the suspension of hostilities between the United States and Spain. It would be unfortunate if any act should be done by either Government which might, in certain aspects, be inconsistent with the suspension of hostilities between the two nations, and which might necessitate the adoption of corresponding measures of precaution by the other Government."

Mr. Moore, Act. Sec. of State, to Mr. Thiébaut, French chargé, Sept. 5, 1898, For. Rel. 1898, 810, 811.

"Almost on the day following that on which the Royal Government received communication of this reply, various organs of the European press announced that the American armored vessels Oregon and Iowa were to be sent to Manila. The Government of Her Majesty refuses to believe that the United States Government has really resolved to increase its land and sea forces in the Philippines, after having opposed the measures which Spain proposed to take in order to repress, as is its right and its duty, the progress of the insurgents in its possessions. If, according to the aforesaid reply of the honorable Mr. Moore, a shipment of Spanish troops to General Rios, who is attacked by superior forces, appears to the Federal Government to be inconsistent with the suspension of hostilities, is not the case the same with the shipment of reinforcements to Admiral Dewey, who is threatened by no enemy? In expressing the hope that each of the

6

two Governments would abstain from any act that might necessitate the adoption of corresponding measures of precaution by the other Government,' did not your honorable predecessor assume, in a manner, for the United States the engagement not to modify the status quo in any way? Under these circumstances, Her Majesty's Government deems it to be its duty to cause a statement to be rectified which it can not but consider as being without foundation."

Observations of the Spanish minister of state, communicated to the Department of State, Washington, by M. Thiébaut, French chargé, Oct. 4, 1898, For. Rel. 1898, 815, 817.

"The American men-of-war to which your note referred as having been ordered to Manila are actually under orders to visit the coast of Brazil and afterwards to proceed to the Hawaiian Islands."

Mr. Hay, Sec. of State, to M. Thiébaut, French chargé, Oct. 29, 1898, For.
Rel. 1898, 817.

Many neutral powers treated the armistice between the United States and Spain, concluded at Washington, August 12, 1898, as a practical end of the war, and permitted American public ships freely to enter their ports for the purpose of docking and taking in supplies.

Mr. Hay, Sec. of State, to Mr. Newel, min. to the Netherlands, No. 195,
Feb. 8, 1899, MS. Inst. Netherlands, XVI. 401.

See, however, Mr. Buck, min. to Japan, to Mr. Day, Sec. of State, No. 190,
Sept. 6, 1898, MS. Desp. from Japan.

XIII. END OF WAR.

§ 1163.

"Notwithstanding that treaties only become definitely binding on the states between which they are made on being Treaty of peace. ratified, a treaty of peace, whether it be in the form of a definitive treaty or of preliminaries of peace, is so far temporarily binding from the date of signature, unless some other date for the commencement of its operation is fixed by the treaty itself, that hostilities must immediately cease. It acts as an armistice if no sepa

rate armistice is concluded."

Hall, Int. Law, 4th ed., 581; 5th ed., 559.

"Acts of war done subsequently to the conclusion of peace, or to the time fixed for the termination of hostilities, although done in ignorance of the existence of peace, are necessarily null. They being so, the effects which they have actually produced must be so far as possible undone, and compensation must be given for the harm suffered through such effects as can not be undone. Thus, territory

which has been occupied must be given up; ships which have been captured must be restored; damage from bombardment or from loss of time or market, &c., ought to be compensated for; and it has been held in the English courts, with the general approbation of subsequent writers, that compensation may be recovered by an injured party from the officer through whose operations injury has been suffered, and that it is for the government of the latter to hold him harmless. It is obvious, on the other hand, that acts of hostility done in ignorance of peace entail no criminal responsibility."

Hall, 4th ed., 585; 5th ed., 564, citing Halleck, II. 262-4; Phillimore, III. § dxviii; Bluntschli, § 709; Calvo, § 2964; The Mentor, 1 C. Rob. 183.

"Following the exchange of ratifications of the treaty of peace the two governments accredited ministers to each other, Spain sending to Washington the Duke of Arcos, an eminent diplomatist, previously stationed in Mexico, while the United States transferred to Madrid Hon. Bellamy Storer, its minister at Brussels. This was followed by the respective appointment of consuls, thereby fully resuming the relations interrupted by the war. In addition to its consular representation in the United States, the Spanish Government has appointed consuls for Cuba, who have been provisionally recognized during the military administration of the affairs of that island.

"Judicial intercourse between the courts of Cuba and Porto Rico and of Spain has been established, as provided by the treaty of peace. The Cuban political prisoners in Spanish penal stations have been and are being released and returned to their homes, in accordance with Article VI. of the treaty."

President McKinley, annual message, Dec. 5, 1899, For. Rel. 1889, xxx.
The Duke of Arcos was presented to the President June 3, 1899. (For.
Rel. 1899, 680–682.)

Mr. Storer was received by the Queen Regent of Spain June 16, 1899.
(Id. 679-680.)

"It is certain that a condition of war can be raised without an authoritative declaration of war, and, on the other End de facto, or by hand, the situation of peace may be restored by the proclamation. long suspension of hostilities without a treaty of peace being made. History is full of such occurrences. What period of suspension of war is necessary to justify the presumption of the restoration of peace has never yet been settled, and must in every case be determined with reference to collateral facts and circumstances.

"The proceedings of Spain and Chili which have been referred to, although conclusive, require an explanation on the part of either of those powers which shall insist that the condition of war still exists.

Peru, equally with Spain, has as absolute a right to decline the good offices or mediation of the United States for peace as either has to accept the same. The refusal of either would be inconclusive as an evidence of determination to resume or continue the war. It is the interest of the United States, and of all nations, that the return of peace, however it may be brought about, shall be accepted whenever it has become clearly established. Whenever the United States shall find itself obliged to decide the question whether the war still exists between Spain and Peru, or whether that war has come to an end, it will make that decision only after having carefully examined all the pertinent facts which shall be within its reach, and after having given due consideration to such representations as shall have been made by the several parties interested."

Mr. Seward, Sec. of State, to Mr. Goñi, Spanish min., July 22, 1868, Dip.
Cor. 1868, II. 32, 34.

"I have yet to learn that a war in which the belligerents, as was the case with the late civil war, are persistent and determined, can be said to have closed until peace is conclusively established, either by treaty when the war is foreign, or when civil by proclamation of the termination of hostilities on one side and the acceptance of such proclamation on the other. The surrender of the main armies of one of the belligerents does not of itself work such termination; nor does such surrender, under the law of nations, of itself end the conqueror's right to seize and sequestrate whatever property he may find which his antagonist could use for a renewal of hostilities. The seizure of such property, and eminently so when, as in the present case, it is notoriously part of the war capital of the defeated government, is an act not merely of policy and right, but of mercy, in proportion to the extent to which the party overthrown is composed of high-spirited men who are ready to submit only when their military resources are wholly exhausted, and not until then. This, in the summer of 1865, was the condition of things in the Southern and Southwestern States of this nation. The period was one in which the maintenance of military rule and the taking into the possession of the United States of all the property capable of use as military resources of those States was essential to the permanent restoration of order, peace, and a common municipal law. This was so from the nature of things, and such was the course of public action. It is in accordance with this principle that the Supreme Court of the United States has formally decided that the late civil war terminated in the particular sections of the United States at the period designated in the proclamations of the President of the United States. (Brown . Hiatts, 15 Wall. 177; Adger v. Alston, ibid. 555; Batesville Institute v. Kauffman, 18 Wall. 151.) And by the President's procla

[ocr errors]

mation of April 2, 1866, the insurrection which heretofore existed in the States of Georgia, South Carolina, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Alabama, Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi, and Florida is at an end, and is henceforth to be so regarded.' Up to and before that date the insurrection in those States was held to exist. that date it was held to be at an end.”

After

Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Muruaga, Span. min., Dec. 3, 1886, For.
Rel. 1887, 1015, 1019. As to termination of Indian wars, see Mr.
Evarts, Sec. of State, to Sir E. Thornton, May 27, 1879, For. Rel.
1879, 496.

See, also, The Protector, 12 Wall. 700.

XIV. CODIFICATIONS OF THE LAWS OF WAR.

§ 1164.

Of

Various attempts have been made to codify the laws of war. these, one of the most celebrated is that known as General Orders, No. 100, April 24, 1863, being instructions for the government of armies of the United States in the field. This code was drafted by Dr. Francis Lieber, and was revised by a board of army officers.

The work of the Brussels Conference of 1874, although the code framed by it was not ratified by the powers, has had a lasting effect. The early literature of the laws of war is reviewed in Holland's Studies in International Law, chapter ii.

As to war, generally, see Fiore, Droit Int. Public, I. 1-145; Pillet, Les Lois Actuelles de la Guerre; Rivier, Principes du Droit des Gens. Of writers on the philosophy of war, a large proportion are Germans, who are divided into two schools, the military and the juridical. The military writers are represented by Gen. J. von Hortmann, Militärische Nothwendigkeit und Humanität, I. 878; and, in briefer form, in Rodenberg's Deutscher Rundschau, XIII. 1877, s. 111 et seq., 450 et seq.; XIV. 1878, s. 71 et seq. See, also, Gen. Carl. von Clausewitz, Vom Kriege.

The names of other military writers and their works are given in Holtzendorff's Handbuch des Völkerrechts, IV. 191.

Bluntschli's Code, and Lueder's Treatise in Holtzendorff's Handbuch are the most important writings of the juridical school.

In English, the laws of war are ably discussed by Halleck, Hall, Holland, and Westlake.

We may mention, in French, the essays of Prof. Henri Brocher, of Lausanne, in the Revue de Droit Int. IV. 1, 381; V. 321, 566.

The Government of the United States explained the fact that it was not represented at the Brussels Conference of 1874 on the ground (1) that it was its established policy to refrain from participating "in international congresses for the discussion and determination of either dynastic questions or of abstract questions of general policy,” and that "the proposed convention was looked upon as one of Euro

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »