BELLIGERENT INTERVENTION CONTRARY TO INTERNATIONAL LAW.
From one violation of International Law I pass to another. The proceedings already detailed show belligerent intervention, contrary to International Law. Here my statement will be brief.
According to all the best authorities, in harmony with reason, no nation has a right to interfere by belligerent intervention in the internal affairs of another, and especially to take part in a civil feud, except under conditions which are wanting here; nor has it a right to interfere by belligerent intervention between two independent nations. The general rule imposed by modern civilization is Non-Intervention; but this rule is little more than a scientific expression of that saying of Philip de Comines, the famous minister of Louis the Eleventh, “Our Lord God does not wish that one nation should play the devil with another.” Not to occupy time with authorities, I content myself with some of our own country, which are clear and explicit, and I begin with George Washington, who wrote to Lafayette, under date of December 25, 1798:—
“No Government ought to interfere with the internal concerns of another, except for the security of what is due to themselves.”[74]
Wheaton lays down the same rule substantially, when he says:—
“Non-Interference is the general rule, to which cases of justifiable interference form exceptions, limited by the necessity of each particular case.”[75]
Thus does Wheaton, like Washington, found intervention in the necessity of the case. Evidently neither thought of founding it on a scheme for the acquisition of foreign territory.
In harmony with Washington and Wheaton, I cite General Halleck, in his excellent work:—
“Wars of intervention are to be justified or condemned accordingly as they are or are not undertaken strictly as the means of self-defence, and self-protection against the aggrandizements of others, and without reference to treaty obligations; for, if wrong in themselves, the stipulations of a treaty cannot make them right.”[76]
Then again Halleck says, in words applicable to the present case:—
“The invitation of one party to a civil war can afford no right of foreign interference, as against the other party. The same reasoning holds good with respect to armed intervention, whether between belligerent states or between belligerent parties in the same state.”[77]
Armed Intervention, or, as I would say, Belligerent Intervention, is thus defined by Halleck:—
“Armed intervention consists in threatened or actual force, employed or to be employed by one state in regulating or determining the conduct or affairs of another. Such an employment of force is virtually a war, and must be justified or condemned upon the same general principles as other wars.”[78]
Applying these principles to existing facts already set forth, it is easy to see that the belligerent intervention of the United States in the internal affairs of Dominica, maintaining the usurper Baez in power, especially against Cabral, was contrary to acknowledged principles of International Law, and that the belligerent intervention between Dominica and Hayti was of the same character. Imagine our Navy playing the fantastic tricks on the coast of France which it played on the coasts of San Domingo, and then, still further, imagine it entering the ports of France as it entered the ports of Hayti, and you will see how utterly indefensible was its conduct. In the capital of Hayti it committed an act of war hardly less flagrant than that of England at the bombardment of Copenhagen. Happily blood was not shed, but there was an act of war. Here I refer to the authorities already cited, and challenge contradiction.
To vindicate these things, whether in Dominica or in Hayti, you must discard all acknowledged principles of International Law, and join those who, regardless of rights, rely upon arms. Grotius reminds us of Achilles, as described by Horace:—
“Rights he spurns
As things not made for him, claims all by arms”;
and he quotes Lucan also, who shows a soldier exclaiming:—
“Now, Peace and Law, I bid you both farewell.”
The old Antigonus, who, when besieging a city, laughed at a man who brought him a dissertation on Justice, and Pompey, who exclaimed, “Am I, when in arms, to think of the laws?”[79]—these seem to be the models for our Government on the coasts of San Domingo.