« PreviousContinue »
regular courses of lectures with a view to a degree. In his autobiography he says that the university people did not quite know whether an American was red or white. He was not only the first or one of the first, but he was one of the best of our university trained students, as was shown by his later critical work, especially his History of Spanish Literature, a work of standard and permanent
I think the reason why Lieber, to a very great degree, and Dr. Karl Follen of Boston, to a less degree, perhaps, were so popular and so admired and loved and respected as teachers and professors was that they were men of broad, liberal views; they were men of thorough scholarship, of thorough training, and both of them had the genius for educational work.
In closing, I will say a word or two about General Orders No. 100, of 1863. After the second campaign of Bull Run in 1862, General McDowell, a very able soldier and a very patriotic citizen, who had commanded an army corps in that campaign, wrote to Mr. Lincoln that a colonel of a New York regiment in one of the recent battles in the vicinity of Bull Run was mortally wounded. There was no possible hope of his recovery. He had but a few minutes to live, and a friend, an officer of his regiment, came to take his last wishes. and messages. The wounded colonel said: "I die a victim to Pope's incapacity and McDowell's treason." What had General McDowell been doing that was treasonable-because there was never a soldier more thoroughly loyal to his country than General McDowell.
One of the commonest rules of war requires a commanding general in occupied territory to protect the inhabitants and their property. Such protection is required of every government in time of peace; it is a thousand times more necessary in time of war. The particular offense that he was trying to uproot and put out of existence was that of plunder. Soldiers would go to houses that were occupied more frequently than not by women, and take away the little food that was left for their use. That was one of the offenses against the laws of war the General strove to prevent. Another was this: The laws of war forbid outposts to be fired upon. The practice has somewhat changed, but, as it was then, an outpost was one whose duty it was to observe, he could do nothing against the enemy. He was stationed in some commanding place where he could overlook the ground in front of him, and it was his duty to give notice of the approach of the
enemy. He was perfectly helpless. He could not fire upon the enemy if he saw him, and could only give warning of his approach; and so, as he was doing nobody any harm, it was a well-established principle that an outpost should not be assassinated, should not be fired upon; that pot-shots should not be taken at him.
These two practices, the most fundamental perhaps in the rules of war, General McDowell had been trying to enforce in his command; but here a man in articulo mortis, a man of the highest character, knowing that he had but a few moments to live, had said: "I die a victim to Pope's incapacity and McDowell's treason." A court of inquiry was called and General McDowell's military reputation was vindicated.
The incident which I have related showed what a field there was for cultivation, by somebody who was competent to make a clear and lucid presentation of the ordinary rules of war.
There is nothing in Dr. Lieber's General Orders No. 100 that is new, or abstruse; nothing which it is difficult to understand. In the practice of modern war it bears a resemblance to the Ten Commandments. Women and children shall not be interfered with; they are to be protected at all costs. Non-combatants are equally to be protected if they take no part in the war. Churches are not to be interfered with and shall not be used for any except their proper purposes. These are very simple statements. But the incident I have related shows how great a necessity there was that the officers and men in the armies of the United States should understand and practice the laws of war. That training they gained in full measure in General Orders No. 100.
Several officers were associated with Dr. Lieber on the board. The one who, I think, rendered him the greatest assistance was General Ethan Allen Hitchcock, of St. Louis, an old officer of the army, a man of great ability and power and of very wide observation, who had an experience of over forty years in the military service; and had what probably Dr. Lieber did not have-the terminology of military operations at his fingers' ends. Dr. Lieber could state the principle of international law, and General Hitchcock was able to give its proper application to the military service in technical terms that officers and men could understand. No one more deeply and profoundly admired Dr. Lieber than did General Hitchcock, who was his principal collaborator in this work.
At one time I was very curious to know what General Halleck's action was when the report containing the matter for the proposed General Order was submitted to him. He was himself an international law writer of very great authority. For a number of years no British vessel of war went to sea without a copy of Sir Sherstone Baker's English edition of Halleck's International Law, an excellent book which is still fairly up to date. I wondered what one of General Halleck's standing and experience would have to say about the code of rules that were submitted with a view to its introduction into a General Order. It is gratifying to know that it was most cordially received and approved by General Halleck. Not an "i" was dotted, not a "t" was crossed. There was a simple approval of it by the commanding general, who had watched its progress hopefully from day to day as the work moved on toward completion. There was cordial approval of the entire project, which matter was submitted to the Secretary of War and the President with a view to its adoption in the military service.
Dr. Lieber has a unique distinction. Sometime ago I read a very excellent French book on Prisoners of War. I was very much surprised to find that the first serious attention that was ever given to the treatment of prisoners of war was by Benjamin Franklin and John Adams in our treaty with Prussia of 1785. Going over the various requirements of the two Hague conventions as to the treatment of prisoners, it will be found that in many important matters they are not yet abreast the great clauses which Franklin caused to be inserted in the treaty with Prussia of 1785.
The French author of the work on Prisoners of War, a writer of great ability, pays a high tribute to the American negotiators of that treaty; he pays an equally high tribute to Dr. Lieber for his work in the preparation of General Orders No. 100, a considerable portion of which is devoted to the care and treatment of prisoners of war, an executive instruction which had been in force in the United States for nearly thirty years before the subject received any general or serious attention in Europe, and nearly forty years were to pass before the matter was to receive consideration at the hands of an international conference. Dr. Lieber's contribution to the laws of war was a memorable one; his contribution to the cause of humanity was infinitely greater, and his memory will be tenderly cherished by those whose efforts to mitigate the severity of the rules
of war and to reduce its inevitable hardships have been constant and untiring.
I thank you for your attention.
The CHAIRMAN. I have very great pleasure in introducing Mr. Talcott Williams, Director of the Columbia School of Journalism, in the City of New York, who will speak to us upon the question entitled, "The share of the United States in opening the world's seas and waterways."
THE PEACE OF THE WATERWAYS.
THE SHARE OF THE UNITED STATES IN OPENING THE. WORLD'S SEAS AND WATERWAYS.
ADDRESS OF DR. TALCOTT WILLIAMS, Director of the Columbia School of Journalism, New York City.
The United States was the first of the Powers, great or small, which rested its diplomatic policy in despatches, and its action by arms, upon the broad principle that the justice of humanity required that all the common utilities of the earth should be open to all men and all flags on terms of even-handed equality. In Jefferson's sonorous phrase in 1792, "The ocean is free to all men and the rivers to all their inhabitants."
The first of these is now so universally true and the second so generally practised, that none now realize in how different a world the Republic first stood forth to challenge immemorial 140 years ago. Neither ocean nor rivers were free in 1783 when the United States began its consistent and unvarying determination to free both from their various servitudes. Broad stretches of the ocean and numerous seas were restricted. The three-mile limit was far from universally accepted. Jurisdiction was claimed at distances of twelve, fifteen, eighteen and twenty miles. Revenue cutters made seizures at longer distances and still are empowered to do so by the municipal law of more than one land. The rights of capture after a blockade had been declared were carried to an inordinate distance. Contraband of war was an indefinite term capable of almost any application. Search and seizure were powers claimed by all navies and ruthlessly exercised by British vessels. In 1736 (9 Geo. II, c. 35), English law extended
search and seizure for offenses against the revenue law and a possible hostile intent to four leagues from shore. Our own statute wisely permitted confiscation when a vessel that had unloaded four leagues from shore (Act March 2, 1797), and came later within the national jurisdiction. In order the better to guard Napoleon Bonaparte at St. Helena, an English hovering act claimed the right of seizure over a wider area and a longer distance, a statute quoted by Secretary Blaine in regard to the attempt of the United States-one of the few aberrations of our policy in nearly a century and a half-to turn into a "closed sea" a sheet of water with a gate 1800 miles wide.
Against all these attempts to curtail marine jurisdiction the United States rigorously protested. Jefferson refused to recognize the claims of Spain six miles from the Cuban coast.1 Nowhere was the United States willing to accept any compromise. Seward and Fish followed the example of Jefferson in dealing with Spain, and when in 1878 the English Territorial Jurisdiction Act was passed abandoning the nebulous claims of the past, which Sir William Scott (Lord Stowell) swept aside with the pitiless logic of his high juridical sense, the early contention of the United States was fully established. Remembering perhaps our repeated claims, enunciated in one leading instance when M. Drouyn de l'Huys protested against the action of the Kearsarge and Alabama out of the three-mile limit but with the French coast within the range of modern projectiles, and Minister Dayton maintained that the increased power of ordnance had not altered an ancient ordinance, the United States has in the last two years, with, perhaps, undue patience, endured stray Mexican shots across our frontier.
The maintenance to its conventional range set by Grotius of this three-mile limit to any exercise of jurisdiction by any individual sovereignty trenching upon the broad right of humanity to the free navigation of the open sea, only began the efforts and the influence of the United States towards freeing the ocean from the encroaching claims of Powers, either civilized or savage, commercial or piratical, prescriptive or predatory. The end of the eighteenth century found whole seas parcelled, with great stretches of ocean over which a juris
For citation on this and other points, I frankly refer the reader to the International Law Digest of Professor John Bassett Moore, a mine in which all will dig for years and years to come. I have, however, with a desire every student will understand, not to plough wholly with another man's heifer, scrupulously verified all his references on the issues cited, with renewed admiration and homage for his accuracy, his method, his grasp of principle and his command of detail.