How often have I pleaded that all men are equal before the Law! And now I plead that all nations are equal before the Law, without distinction of color. 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:--