specified as proper for its action, and to submit to the decision of a High Tribunal of Arbitration, constituted and proceeding in conformity to article 535.

Nations violating provisions, to be resisted by all. 537. If any party hereto shall begin a war, in violation of the provisions of this Code for the preservation of peace, the other parties bind themselves to resist the offending nation by force.

Annual conference of representatives of nations.

538. A conference of representatives of the nations, parties hereto, shall be held every year, beginning on the first of January, at the capital of each in rotation, and in the order mentioned in article 16, for the purpose of discussing the provisions of this Code, and their amendment, averting war, facilitating intercourse, and preserving peace.

War, in all its aspects, has little to recommend it, and almost everything to condemn it. Even the brilliant qualities of courage and selfsacrifice, which it often calls forth, are more than counterbalanced by the cruelty, license and corruption, which are its inseparable concomitants. The history of every nation, after a great war, is a history of demoralization. The moral sense appears to be weakened by the spectacle of brute force contending with brute force; the sensibilities are blunted by indifference to suffering, and familiarity with death; the morals of camps are proverbially loose; the custom of destruction is apt to beget the love of it; and that regard for the rights and feelings of others, which is the chief glory of civilization, is lessened, if not lost, in the struggle for life and mastery in fight.

There may indeed be in nations, as in individuals, a stagnation and corruption worse than death; and war, like pestilence and famine, may be used by the Almighty as a scourge to drive them away, but that proves, not that war is a good thing in itself, but that there may be things that

are worse.

Contention does undoubtedly sharpen the intellect, but there may be other kinds of contention than that of mere force. Indeed, that contention which aims to overcome obstacles in nature, to outstrip in manly arts, to look deepest into the mysteries of the world, material and spiritual; contention in letters and arts, in poetry, philosophy and his tory, in agriculture and navigation, in the refinements of life, the cultivation of taste, and the elevation of morals; that is the contention which really purifies and exalts.

We see that the waste and destruction of war are by no means the greatest of its evils, great as they are. We have before our eyes, at this moment, the devastation of one war, which lasted but a few months, but

which filled Germany with mourners, and covered France with wasted fields, and cities and villages battered and burnt. Half a year of war caused more sorrow and suffering, than a century of peace.

It is, therefore, to be assumed that any well considered scheme, which promises to lessen the number of wars, will receive the countenance of all good men. The scheme of the text is submitted, in the hope that, if it be not accepted, it may at least stimulate inquiry, and lead to something more acceptable, and more efficacious in preserving the peace of the world.

Whether it be possible to prevent war altogether, is the problem of the future, but it cannot be doubtful that the chances and the occasions of its occurrence may be lessened. These articles are framed with that view. They are not the result of mere speculation. Most of them have experience of some sort, greater or less, to recommend them.

The rule requiring a statement of grievances to be made out and submitted to the government complained of, and requiring a definite answer, will tend to prevent wanton and unprovoked attack.

The rule requiring the creation of a Joint High Commission, which shall at least meet to discuss the differences, and seek to reconcile them, follows the precedent set by the United States and Great Britain, in their manner of treating the Alabama Question.

The submission to arbitration has already been stipulated in several treaties. It is an effectual and honorable mode of settling differences. The manner of selecting arbitrators is suggested by the provisions of the Articles of Confederation of the United States, which were as follows:

"The United States, in Congress assembled, shall also be the last resort, on appeal, in all disputes and differences now subsisting, or that hereafter may arise between two or more States concerning boundary, jurisdiction, or any other cause whatever; which authority shall always be exercised in the manner following: Whenever the legislative or executive authority, or lawful agent of any State in controversy with another, shall present a petition to Congress, stating the matter in question, and praying for a hearing, notice thereof shall be given, by order of Congress, to the legislative or executive authority of the other State in controversy, and a day assigned for the appearance of the parties, by their lawful agents, who shall then be directed to appoint, by joint consent, commissioners or judges, to constitute a court for hearing and determining the matter in question; but if they cannot agree, Congress shall name three persons out of each of the United States, and from the list of such persons each party shall alternately strike out one, the petitioners beginning, until the number shall be reduced to thirteen; and from that number not less than seven nor more than nine names, as Congress shall direct, shall, in the presence of Congress, be drawn out by lot and the persons whose names shall be so drawn, or any five of them, shall be commissioners or judges, to hear and finally determine the controversy, so always as a major part of the judges, who shall hear the cause, shall agree in the determination; and if either party shall

neglect to attend at the day appointed, without showing reasons which Congress shall judge sufficient, or, being present, shall refuse to strike, the Congress shall proceed to nominate those persons out of each State, and the Secretary of Congress shall strike, in behalf of such party, absent or refusing; and the judgment and sentence of the court, to be appointed in the manner before prescribed, shall be final and conclusive; and if any of the parties shall refuse to submit to the authority of such court, or to appear, or defend their claim or cause, the court shall nevertheless proceed to pronounce sentence or judgment, which shall in like manner be final and decisive, the judgment or sentence and other proceedings being in either case transmitted to Congress, and lodged among the acts of Congress, for the security of the parties concerned : Provided, That every commissioner, before he sits in judgment, shall take an oath, to be administered by one of the judges of the supreme or superior court of the State where the cause shall be tried, "well and truly to hear and determine the matter in question, according to the best of his judgment, without favor, affection, or hope of reward."

Why the several provisions of the text, or others of similar purport and design, should not be adopted, and why, if adopted, they should not answer the purposes intended, it would be difficult to say. National pride would not be touched, national interests would not suffer. War is a national duel. Private dueling, that is, private warfare, has been either abolished, or reduced to a minimum. If it has been found practicable to make individuals settle their disputes in some other way than by the rapier or the pistol, it is not easy to see why any number of individuals composing a nation should not be brought to do the same thing.

The general principles which have been kept in view in framing the Articles of this Division, and which are discussed in more detail in various notes, may be indicated as follows:

1. Each nation ought to be allowed to regulate all transactions affecting the ownership of its own soil. According to some authorities, the capacity of the person, as to taking or conveying, depends on the law of his nationality,―—(Fœlix, Droit Intern. ;) but this does not seem reasonable. 2. Each nation ought to be allowed to regulate all transactions had within its limits, whether between citizens or foreigners, except such as affect the ownership of the soil of another nation.

These principles are commended alike by their recognition of the fundamental doctrine of the territorial sovereignty of nations, by their affording individuals convenient means of knowing what the law is to which they must conform in every case, and by their being in harmony in these respects with the progress and tendency of modern jurisprudence. The ancient rule, of oriental origin perhaps, maintains the sovereignty of the laws of a nation over the personal capacity, and, therefore, over the transactions of its own members, even when they are within the territory of another nation, opposing in this respect the territorial sover