"Nothing could be so unwise to say nothing more of them-as our unmeaning marauding expeditions to Washington and Baltimorewhich exasperated without weakening—and irritated all the passions of the nation, without even a tendency to diminish its resources nay, which added directly to their force, both by the indignation and unanimity which they excited, and by teaching them to feel their own strength, and to despise an enemy, that, with all his preparation and animosity, could do them so little substantial mischief." (24 Edinburgh Rev. 254, Nov., 1814.) Sir A. Alison, after showing his Tory proclivities by declaring that the "battle" of Bladensburg has done "service to future times, and to the cause of historic truth by demonstrating in a decisive manner the extreme feebleness of the means for national protection which democratic institutions afford," goes on to say that "it is to be regretted that the luster of the victory has been much tarnished to the British arms by the unusual and, under the circumstances, unwarrantable extension which they made of the ravages of war to the pacific or ornamental edifices of the capital." (10 Alison Hist. of Europe, 725.) "When the British forces in 1814 destroyed the Capitol, the President's house, and other public edifices at Washington, the justification of the act was rested by the British admiral on the ground of retaliation for the wanton destruction committed by the troops of the United States in Upper Canada. The correspondence between Mr. Secretary Monroe and Admiral Cochrane on this subject, is interesting and instructive, for it shows that both parties considered such acts of devastation as abnormal, and as involving a departure from the ordinary practice of civilized warfare. It is to be regretted that Great Britain retaliated in kind on this occasion, for the lex talionis is not the rule of modern warfare; and if one of the belligerent parties should have placed itself in the wrong by having recourse to exceptional measures, the balance can not be redressed in the right manner by the adversary having recourse to identical measures, and so placing himself in pari delicto. When Prince Blucher proposed to blow up the bridge of Jena, and to overthrow the column of Austerlitz upon the allied powers entering Paris, he sought to retaliate upon the French nation the acts of wanton destruction and desolation, which they had inflicted upon the Prussian nation; but the allied powers wisely and prudently withstood Prince Blucher's desire. An example of a wiser practice was shown by the Emperor Francis of Austria in regard to the arch of Simplon, which Napoleon had erected in Milan to commemorate his victories over the Austrians. The history of those victories was given in a series of bas reliefs, the last of which represented Napoleon dictating peace to the Emperor Francis in Vienna. The Emperor Francis directed the historical series of bas reliefs to be completed, and opposite to the bas relief representing the Emperor Napoleon dictating peace to the Austrians at Vienna, the arch at present exhibits a bas relief representing Napoleon's subsequent abdication at Fontainebleau." Twiss, Law of Nations, War (2d ed.), § 69, pp. 133-134. See Retaliation, supra, § 1114, for the correspondence between Mr. Monroe and Admiral Cochrane, referred to by Twiss. "The destruction of the towns of Newark and York by the American troops during their retreat from Canada in 1813 and of the publie buildings of Washington by the English in 1814 may be classed together as wholly unnecessary and discreditable. The case of Washington so far differs from the former that it may perhaps be not unreasonably defended as an act of reprisals. The latter case [of Washington] was warmly animadverted upon by Sir J. Mackintosh in the House of Commons; and since that time not only have no instances occurred, save by indulgence in an exceptional practice to be mentioned presently, but opinion has decisively laid down that, except to the extent of that practice, the measure of permissible devastation is to be found in the strict necessities of war." Hall, Int. Law (5th ed.), 534, citing Ann. Register, 1814, 145, 177; Hansard, XXX. 527; Manning, ch. v.; Heffter, § 125; Twiss, War, § 65; Bluntschli, § 663; Calvo, § 1919. It appears that President Balmaceda, of Chile, February 13, 1891, issued an order to the intendente of Tarapacá, directing him, in case of losing possession of Iquique and of the line of the nitrate railway, completely to destroy all the nitrate factories in the province. February 23, 1891, Mr. Kennedy, British minister at Santiago, though not then aware of the existence of this order, telegraphed to Lord Salisbury that the Chilean minister for foreign affairs had declared to him on two or three occasions that, in case the opposition fleet should succeed in taking possession of Iquique, the Government would order the destruction of all the machinery and working gear of the nitrate factories in the province of Tarapacá, in order to deprive the feet of the revenues afforded by the export duties on nitrate. Most of the "officinas" belonged to British subjects. February 26 Lord Salisbury telegraphed Mr. Kennedy to state that Chile would be held responsible by Her Majesty's Government for any losses which may fall upon British subjects in consequence of wanton destruction or injury of private property." This instruction was carried out by Mr. Kennedy in a note to Señor Godoy of March 4, 1891. In this note Mr. Kennedy, in conformity with his instructions, entered a formal and emphatic protest against any proposal to destroy British nitrate factories, and announced that his Government would hold Chile responsible" for losses to British subjects arising out of acts of unnecessary and wholesale destruction." In a subsequent interview with Señor Godoy, Mr. Kennedy intimated that the destruction of British property in the northern provinces would cost Chile about 10,000,000l. Señor Godoy replied that Chile could and would pay it, and that, in the event of the capture of Iquique or of the commencement of serious hostilities, orders had been given for the destruction of all property which might afford resources to the opposition for the maintenance of the revolu tion. 66 Blue Book, Chile, No. 1 (1892), 17, 18, 104-105, 261. Dealing with the question of the Peking astronomical instruments, Count von Bülow explained that they had not been restored because the Chinese Government attached no importance to their possession and in reply to German inquiries had placed them at the disposition of the German Government. Another consideration was that in accordance with the peculiar views of the Chinese the great mass of that people would have supposed that the instruments were restored by order of the Chinese Government, which would have damaged the German position in East Asia. The Dowager Empress of China, a very clever woman who understood the political situation, would have been distinctly offended, while the masses would have thought that Germany had sustained some terrible defeats. The instruments ought now to be placed in that category of presents from government to government which had long been customary on both sides in intercourse with the Chinese Government. (Interruptions on the left. The President rang his bell.)" The London Times, weekly, March 7, 1902, p. 148. "35. Classical works of art, libraries, scientific collections, or precious instruments, such as astronomical telescopes, as well as hospitals, must be secured against all avoidable injury, even when they are contained in fortified places whilst besieged or bombarded. "36. If such works of art, libraries, collections, or instruments belonging to a hostile nation or government, can be removed without injury, the ruler of the conquering state or nation may order them to be seized and removed for the benefit of the said nation. The ultimate ownership is to be settled by the ensuing treaty of peace. "In no case shall they be sold or given away, if captured by the armies of the United States, nor shall they ever be privately appropriated, or wantonly destroyed or injured.” Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field, General Orders, No. 100, April 24, 1863, War of the Rebellion, (6) PROHIBITED IMPLEMENTS. § 1124. "On the whole it may be said generally that weapons are illegitimate which render death inevitable or inflict distinctly more suffering than others, without proportionately crippling the enemy. Thus poisoned arms have long been forbidden, and guns must not be loaded with nails or bits of iron of irregular shape. To these customary prohitions the European powers, except Spain, have added as between themselves the abandonment of the right to use explosive projectiles weighing less than fourteen ounces; and in the declaration of St. Petersburg, by which the renunciation of the right was effected in 1868, they took occasion to lay down that the object of the use of weapons in war is to disable the greatest possible number of men, that this object would be exceeded by the employment of arms which needlessly aggravate the sufferings of disabled men, or render their death inevitable, and that the employment of such arms would therefore be contrary to the laws of humanity.'" Hall, Int. Law (5th ed.), 531–532. The plenipotentiaries at the Peace Conference at The Hague," duly authorized to that effect by their Governments, inspired by the sentiments which found expression in the declaration of St. Petersburg of the 29th November (11th December), 1868, declare that: The Contracting Powers agree to prohibit, for a term of five years, the launching of projectiles and explosives from balloons, or by other new methods of similar nature. The present Declaration is only binding on the Contracting Powers in case of war between two or more of them. It shall cease to be binding from the time when, in a war between the Contracting Powers, one of the belligerents is joined by a non-Contracting Power." Declaration signed at The Hague, July 29, 1899, between Austria-Hungary, In the programme of The Hague Conference, embraced in the Russian cir- torpedo boats, or of other engines of destruction of the same nature; agreement not to construct in the future warships armed with rams." "The second, third, and fourth articles, . . seem lacking in praeticability, and the discussion of these propositions would probably prove provocative of divergence rather than unanimity of view. It is doubtful if wars are to be diminished by rendering them less destructive, for it is the plain lesson of history that the periods of peace have been longer protracted as the cost and destructiveness of war have increased. The expediency of restraining the inventive genius of our people in the direction of devising means of defense is by no means clear, and considering the temptations to which men and nations may be exposed in a time of conflict, it is doubtful if an international agreement to this end would prove effective. The dissent of a single powerful nation might render it altogether nugatory. The delegates are, therefore, enjoined not to give the weight of their influence to the promotion of projects the realization of which is so uncertain." (Instructions to the United States delegates to The Hague Conference, April 18, 1899, For. Rel. 1899, 511, 512.) "As to that portion of the work of the first committee which concerned the limitations of invention and the interdiction of sundry arms, explosives, mechanical agencies, and methods heretofore in use or which might possibly be hereafter adopted, as regards warfare by land and sea, namely, articles 2, 3, and 4, the whole matter having been divided between Captains Mahan and Crozier so far as technical discussion was concerned, the reports made by them from time to time to the American commission formed the basis of its final action on these subjects in the first committee and in the conference at large. “The American commission approached the subject of the limitation of invention with much doubt. They had been justly reminded in their instructions of the fact that by the progress of invention, as applied to the agencies of war, the frequency, and, indeed, the exhausting character of war had been, as a rule, diminished rather than increased. As to details regarding missiles and methods, technical and other difficulties arose which obliged us eventually, as will be seen, to put ourselves on record in opposition to the large majority of our colleagues from other nations on sundry points. While agreeing with them most earnestly as to the end to be attained, the difference in regard to some details was irreconcilable. We feared falling into evils worse than those from which we sought to escape. The annexed reports of Captains Mahan and Crozier will exhibit very fully these difficulties and the decisions thence arising." (Report of the United States delegates to The Hague Conference to the Secretary of State. July 31, 1899, For. Rel. 1899, 513, 515.) The conference also adopted a declaration prohibiting the use of projectiles having as their sole object the diffusion of asphyxiating or deleterious gases. This, for reasons given in a special report, the American delegates did not sign. It was signed by sixteen delegations, as follows: Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, France, Greece, Mexico, Montenegro, the Netherlands, Persia, Portugal, Roumania, Russia, Siam, Spain, Sweden and Norway, and Turkey. For. Rel. 1899, 513, 519-520. |