1. Opinions of publicists. § 1044. 2. Denials of liability. § 1045. 3. Assertions of liability; grants of compensation. § 1046. 4. Indemnity for acts of successful revolutionists. § 1047. 5. Payment of duties to insurgents. § 1048. XIII. Neutral rights and duties. I. POLITICAL INTERVENTION. 1. GENERAL PRINCIPLES. § 897. "Intervention," says Hall, "takes place when a state interferes in the relations of two other states without the consent of both or either of them, or when it interferes in the domestic affairs of another state irrespectively of the will of the latter for the purpose of either maintaining or altering the actual condition of things within it. Prima facie intervention is a hostile act, because it constitutes an attack upon the independence of the state subjected to it. Nevertheless its position in law is somewhat equivocal. Regarded from the point of view of the state intruded upon it must always remain an act which, if not consented to, is an act of war. But from the point of view of the intervening power it is not a means of obtaining redress for a wrong done, but a measure of prevention or of police, undertaken. sometimes for the express purpose of avoiding war. Hence although intervention often ends in war, and is sometimes really war from the commencement, it may be conveniently considered abstractedly from the pacific or belligerent character which it assumes in different cases." Hall, Int. Law, 5th ed. 284. See Bluntschli, trans. by Lardy, ed. 1881, §§ 68-69, 431-441, 474-480; Bonfils-Fauchille, Manuel, ed. 1901, §§ 295-323; Creasy, First Platform, 278-296; Heffter, Bergson's ed. 1883, §§ 108-111; Phillimore, 3d ed., I. 553-638; Wheaton, Dana's ed., §§ 125-133. Much that is found on the subject of intervention in the books on international law is specially applicable to the situation in Europe, and can be applied only indirectly or by analogy to the situation in America or in other parts of the non-European world. Thus, coupled with intervention on the ground of self-preservation, which is of course universally applicable, we find intervention to preserve rights of succession, which has never been exemplified in America. We also find in the books the following additional causes assigned as grounds of intervention: 1. Intervention in restraint of wrongdoing (1) against illegal acts, (2) against immoral acts. 2. Intervention under a treaty of guarantee. 3. Intervention by invitation of a party to a civil war. 4. Intervention under the authority of the body of states. Hall, Int. Law, 5th ed. 285–296. See De Martens, Précis, § 75; Calvo, Le Droit Int. §§ 141-142; Fiore, I. 421-455; Mamiani, 100–101, 112. As to intervention to preserve the balance of power in Europe, see Phillimore, 2d ed., I., Preface, vii-ix. As an example of intervention to put an end to abhorrent conditions, the case of Bulgaria in 1876 may be taken. As an example of intervention on the invitation of the parties to a civil war, we may take the case of Belgium, in 1830, which is fully narrated in Wheaton's History of the Law of Nations, pt. 4, sec. 26. As an example of intervention under the collective authority of a body of states, Rolin-Jaequemyns cites the case of Turkey, as regulated by the concert of the Great Powers. (Rev. de Droit Int. XVIII. 603.) After the war of 1897 the powers intervened in behalf of Greece, and regulated the affairs of Crete. "As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries." Art. X., treaty between the United States and Tripoli, signed by Hassan See, also, Art. XIV., treaty with Tripoli, 1805. "As the government of the United States of America has, in itself, no The laws of Turkey "whereby the penalty of death is denounced against the Mussulman who embraces Christianity," however outrageous, do not justify an appeal from this Government for their repeal. It Mr. Marcy, Sec. of State, to Mr. Spence, Dec. 28, 1855, MS. Inst. Turkey, I. 392. may "The main difficulty connected with intervention is the following: be admitted that there are possibilities of tyrannical usage, barbarous practices, or persistent and hopeless anarchy, out of which the friendly aid of a generous, impartial, and truly disinterested by |