THE BOMBARDMENT OF SAN JUAN, PORTO RICO.
May 13. In the Spanish Cortes, Señor Molinas, deputy for Porto Rico, protested against the bombardment of San Juan without notice, as an infringement of international usage.
To this General Correa, Minister of War, replied that the conduct of the Americans was “vandalism,” and that the government “will bring their outrageous action under the notice of the powers.” He echoed Señor Molinas’s eulogy of the bravery of the Spanish troops and marines, and promised that the government would send its thanks.
An authority on international law thus comments upon the bombardment, in the columns of the New York Sun:
“There is nothing in the laws of war which requires notice of bombardment to be given to a fortified place, during the progress of war. When the Germans threatened to bombard Port au Prince, a few months ago, they gave a notice of a few hours, but in that case no state of war existed. Again, when Spain bombarded Valparaiso, in 1865, an hour’s interval was allowed between the blank charge that gave the notice, and the actual bombardment. But that interval was intended to allow Chili an opportunity to do the specific thing demanded, namely, to salute the Spanish [pg 128]flag, in atonement for a grievance. Besides, Valparaiso was wholly unfortified, and the guns were directed, not at military works, but at public buildings.
“The case of San Juan was far different. Hostilities had been going on in Gulf waters for weeks, while, as Doctor Snow, the well-known authority on international law, says, ‘In case of war, the very fact of a place being fortified is evidence that at any time it is liable to attack, and the non-combatants residing within its limits must be prepared for a contingency of this kind.’ This is true, also, of the investment of fortified places by armies, where ‘if the assault is made, no notice is given, as surprise is essential to success.’ In the same spirit Halleck says that ‘every besieged place is for a time a military garrison; its inhabitants are converted into soldiers by the necessities of self-defence.’
“Turning to the official report of Admiral Sampson, we find him saying that, as soon as it was light enough, he began ‘an attack upon the batteries defending the city. This attack lasted about three hours, and resulted in much damage to the batteries, and incidentally to a portion of the city adjacent to the batteries.’ It is, therefore, clear that this latter damage was simply the result of the proximity of the defensive works to some of the dwellings. The same thing would occur in bombarding Havana. Can any one imagine that the Spaniards, if they suddenly appeared in New York Bay, would be obliged to give notice before opening fire on Fort Hamilton and Fort Wadsworth, for the reason that [pg 129]adjacent settlements would suffer from the fire? The advantage of suddenness in the attack upon a place, not only fortified, but forewarned by current events, cannot be renounced. Civilians dwelling near defensive works know what they risk in war.
“In the Franco-German war of 1870 there were repeated instances, according to the authority already quoted, of deliberately firing on inhabited towns instead of on their fortifications, and ‘there were cases, like that of Peronne, where the town was partially destroyed while the ramparts were nearly intact.’ The ground taken was that which a military writer, General Le Blois, had advocated five years before, namely, that the pressure for surrender exercised by the people becomes greater on subjecting them to the loss of life and property. ‘The governor is made responsible for all the disasters that occur; the people rise against him, and his own troops seek to compel him to an immediate capitulation.’ At San Juan there was no attempt of this sort, the fire being concentrated upon the batteries, with the single view of destroying them. The likelihood that adjacent buildings and streets would suffer did not require previous notice of the bombardment, and, in fact, when the Germans opened fire on Paris without notification, and a protest was made on behalf of neutrals, Bismarck simply replied that no such notification was required by the laws of war.”