THE CORTES AND THE "INTERNATIONALE."

(From the Journal des Débats, Paris, November 1.)

WE cannot reproduce the whole of M. Castelar's speech. The Spanish orator attributes the greatest share in the international movement to the Russian Bakounine. The first Congress of European democracy was held at Geneva in 1867. The Slavonic Collectivists there presented their formula, which was rejected. Then it was decided that the Congress should vote by nationalities. It met at Berne in 1868. The Germans, French, Italians, and Swiss voted against the formula of collective property, but the Russians, Poles, Americans, and English, who also made up four votes, voted for it. So far there was no solution. M.Castelar, who was the sole representative of Spain, and, consequently, of a nationality, decided the question; and, faithful to his liberal ideas, he voted for individual property. "The Slavs," says he, " reproached us with being only purely formal Democrats, purely Platonic Republicans and they threatened to turn against us, against political democracy, all the associations which they organised throughout Europe."
This threat was accomplished, and the Congress of Bale, in 1869, ended by voting collective property. M. Castelar, as representative of the Spanish nationality and of individual property, is, therefore, outside the party called Collectivist or Communist. What he defends is the right of association, as well for the Jesuits as for Socialists. What he condemns is the doctrine which annihilates human personality, and which chokes its root — that is to say, individual property — in the ground. M. Castelar evidently has Liberal ideas, but he arrives at doctrines incompatible with liberty. The individual is not free in an absolute manner because he has beside him other individuals who are entitled to equal liberty, and a community which, by securing rights for him, also imposes duties upon him. After the somewhat Apocalyptic language of M. Castelar was heard the voice of reason wisdom and positive right. M. Alonzo Martinez let fall drops of cold water on this vapour, and put truth and reality in the place of imagination and dreaming. "Do you know a man," said he " who was not born in a family, who is not either a son or a brother, who is not a citizen of a country or of a commune? As soon as there are several individuals in this world they limit each other mutually. I cannot avoid being born in one country or another ; I may change my nationality but I must take another. Do you think you have an absolute right to life? Here is the constitution which tells you that every citizen is obliged to defend his country with his blood when he is called to do so by the law. You speak of an absolute right of property. But the Constitution orders you to contribute to the expenses of the State in proportion to your income. All individual securities are subject to the law."
It is for this reason that we do not consider special laws necessary. No power, except a theocratic religious, and dogmatic power, has the right to define morality. A civil power can only define order. By virtue of what right and of what dogma can an assembly, composed of men of all possible religions, or of men who have no religion, claim to define morality ? It can make a penal code, but not a code of morality. The " Internationale" comes within the range of the common law, like everything that concerns public order ; and, when it disturbs public order, it is amenable to the ordinary tribunals. Special measures adopted against it can only be efficacious if they are adopted in common with other countries, and that will always be the great difficulty.

 smh 28/12/1871