lieve that he has recovered the former good opinion in which he was held by his fellows. What has been said about individuals in a community is in the main true of nations. An intentional injury or insult offered to a state or to those whom the state is bound to protect affects the self-esteem of the entire population because they feel that the respect in which their state was held by others is diminished as long as such an affront is submitted to.

After this short account of the origin of redress from revenge and the force of the motive to secure rehabilitation for the loss of prestige, we shall be better able to take up the consideration of the nature of expiation, the first of the three purposes comprehended in action taken to secure redress. The other two, as we have said above, were indemnification for material injury, and security against a repetition of the offense.

§3. EXPIATION

When an international offense has caused material loss, obvious and practical considerations impel the injured state to insist upon an adequate indemnity. But the injurious acts may also have caused a hurt to national honor or prestige; in some instances, injuries of this nature may be the only issue involved.

A hurt to national honor and prestige generally results from an intentional disregard of rights, and may be actuated by one of the following motives:

1st. The desire to pick a quarrel.

2nd. The belief that the injured state is too pusillanimous to resent the wrong done it.

3rd. The belief that the injured state is not strong enough to retaliate.

If the motive is to pick a quarrel, experience shows that there is usually little advantage in delaying the

retaliatory action which the injury warrants, and the sentiment of mankind still applauds the prompt taking up of the defiance. Even if there be superior considerations which should justify a refusal to engage in the conflict, public opinion will surely register its disapproval of the abnegation and the state will, from a popular view-point, suffer a loss of honor and prestige.

The same consequences will result in those instances when the failure to exact redress is due to the craven spirit upon which the injuring state counted.

As regards the third class of instances, when the insulted state is really greatly inferior in strength, the failure to take up arms for redress will not necessarily result in a loss of honor. It will, however, make very clear how inferior is the military strength of the insulted state and its political prestige will suffer.23

Sir Edward Creasy has well expressed this: "A state has," he says, "the right to repel and to exact redress for injuries to its honor. This also is a right of self-preservation. For, among nations, as among individuals, those, who tamely submit to insult, will be sure to have insults and outrages heaped upon them until the sense of intolerable wrong drives them into physical contest under probably disadvantageous circumstances, and after they have deprived themselves of that general sympathy which manly and consistent conduct will always obtain for even the unsuccessful brave. Without doubt vainglory and bluster are as detestable in a nation as in a private person. True honor consists in combining self-respect with respect

23 In those instances where the insulted state is conspicuously superior in strength to the insulter, a failure to exact redress may enhance prestige. This will be the case when, in the opinion of the public, such abnegation takes on the aspect of magnanimity.

for the feelings and rights of others."" (Sir Edward S. Creasy: First Platform of International Law, London, 1876, p. 153).

To prevent the loss of honor and prestige, the injured state must demonstrate that it has brought the insulter to book, and thereby rehabilitated itself. If the insulter offers resistance, his complete subjection by the sword would be the necessary consequence; but, in general, matters do not proceed to this length. The insult given in hot blood is repented of, or the certainty that the injured state will marshal a superior force for requital begets fear and counsels conciliation. Or it may be that the lowering clouds of war make the contemner afraid to engage in a controversy which will offer his rivals an undisturbed opportunity to advance their designs. In many instances an innate sense of justice and of self-respect will lead the wrong-doer to recognize as unworthy any effort to sustain his act. It then becomes the aim of the provoking state to avoid the consequences of its act, and to arrest the measure of redress. The accomplishment of this purpose is known as "expiation"-that is the acknowledgment of the wrong done by acts expressing contrition.25

24Creasy gives the following supplementary note: "The single Greek word Alds simply and eloquently expresses all this, and much more.

"In making serious contumely to honor a cause for hostile proceedings, international law follows the Roman civil law, according to which, 'Dignitas quoque hominis in jure consideratur,' and 'Injuria' in the form of contumely is described as 'Injuria non bonis damnum factum intelligitur, sed contra personæ dignitatem.'-See Warnkoenig: Institutiones Juris Romani Privati, §§ 126 and 986."

25 The significance of these acts is the ceremonial placing of the offender in the position where he would ultimately be when justly vanquished by the wronged state. The ceremony by expressing this situation proclaims to the world that the result may be considered to have taken place. Both parties thereby save a futile expenditure of blood and treasure.

Expiation may be expressed in various ways, according to the nature of the offense and the situation of the parties.

International rehabilitation, to be adequate, must meet the views of international society. In practice, when there has been any hurt to honor or prestige, rehabilitation is usually sought through the exaction of an apology. A good instance of an apology is found in the following dispatch of February 6, 1858, from Count Walewski, the French Minister of Foreign Affairs, to Count de Persigny at London. Notwithstanding the courteous tone of the dispatch, feeling ran high in France against England because of the asylum she afforded for political agitators.

Lord Palmerston had been turned out of power when he attempted to secure the adoption of legislation which would prevent Great Britain from offering so unrestricted an asylum to political conspirators against neighboring sovereigns, and when the French Government saw the consequences of this attempt and the outburst of national anger, they were willing to drop the matter and to help Disraeli, who had succeeded Lord Palmerston, by sending the conciliatory dispatch which arrived in time to be read to the House of Commons on its reassembling on March 12, after adjournment.20 As translated, the dispatch reads as follows:

"M. le Comte: The account you give me of the effect produced in England by the insertion on the Moniteur

26 See Buckle's Life of Disraeli, vol. IV, p. 123.

John Stuart Mill writes Giuseppe Mazzini, February 21, 1858 (Letters, vol. I, p. 201), "...When I began writing to you I thought that this country was meanly allowing itself to be made an appendage to Louis Bonaparte's police for the purpose of hunting down all foreigners (and indeed English too) who have virtue enough to be his avowed enemies. But it appears we are to be spared this ignominy; and such is the

of certain addresses from the army, has not escaped my attention, and I have made a report of it to the Emperor. You are aware of the sentiments by which we have been influenced in the steps we have adopted with Her Britannic Majesty's Government on the occasion of the attack of the 14th of January [attempted assassination of Napoleon III], and of the care we have taken, in applying for its concurrence, to avoid everything that could bear the appearance of pressure on our part. All our communications manifest our confidence in its sincerity ('loyauté'), and our deference for the initiative being taken by it; and if, in the enthusiastic manifestations of the devotion of the army, words have possibly been inserted which have seemed in England to be characterized by a different sentiment, they are too much opposed to the language which the Emperor's Government has not ceased to hold that of Her Britannic Majesty, for it to be possible to attribute them to anything else than inadvertence, caused by the number of those addresses. The Emperor enjoins you to say to Lord Clarendon how much he regrets it.

"I authorize you to give a copy of this dispatch to the Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.' (Parliamentary Papers, 1857-8, vol. 60, p. 127 [2317]). In other instances, an apology is incorporated in a treaty: Great Britain, in Article I of the Treaty of Washington (May 8, 1871), agreeing to submit the Alabama claims to arbitration, expressed her regret "for the escape, under whatever circumstances, of the Alabama and other vessels from British ports and for

state of the world ten years after 1848 that even this must be felt as a great victory."

To Pasquale Villari, March 9, 1858, he writes in similar vein, and says the Palmerston Ministry was overthrown because of its attempt to drag the nation in the mud and make it a branch of the French police (Ibid, vol. I, p. 202-3).