602

ARBITRATION, IF LONGER PERMISSIBLE, NOT A

the long run, justice, good faith, fair dealing, frankness, fidelity, candor, and honor, do more to elevate than to

depress a nation. These qualities are virtues which exalt a state to a lofty position. In no state, where these virtues have a prevailing influence, is the integrity of that state questioned or its honor suspected. And although a state may justly pride itself upon its good faith and national honor, yet it will never be compelled to prove its consistency, or to defend its integrity by chicanery or technicalities.

Even now, an open, manly, frank, and sincere avowal to do justice by John Bright (that type of an English representative commoner), would go far to remove animosity, restore amicable relations, point out the way to a just and honorable adjustment of all differences, and render the future of the two nations radiant with the promise of peace and reality of growing prosperity. Nothing could more aggrandize England, or elevate her in the eyes of neutral nations. Let all former modes of arbitration, mixed commissions, umpires, and referees be dispensed with, as no longer admissible modes of settle

ment.

Russia is America's friend. For that, and many other historical reasons, England would not select or assent to the selection of the Russian Emperor, as umpire or arbitrator. France is England's present ally, and imitated England in according to the South belligerent rights. The United States could not, therefore, and would not agree to abide the decision of the French Emperor, as referee, arbitrator, or umpire of a mixed or other commission. Prussia is honored with a most able Prime Minister in Bismark, who might have a commanding influence over his sovereign. But the King of

FEASIBLE MODE OF ADJUSTMENT.

603

Prussia is allied by marriage to the royal family of England, and might possibly be reached by subtle influences, in spite of the high honor, sagacity, good sense, and diplomatic skill and learning of even the most conspicuous Premier in Europe. In whatever direction, therefore, jurists, publicists, or diplomatists may turn their attention for arbitration, some difficulty will inevitably beset them in making a suitable and sagacious selection of an indifferent arbiter.

Therefore, the better way would seem to be for a direct consultation to take place between the parties, without any intermediation; both resolved to do their utmost to effect an adjustment; and neither desiring to display skill in avoiding a practical solution, or indefinitely postponing it.

From the events of history, it is manifest that the dubious conception of the nature and extent of neutral rights and duties springs rather from a want of experience by ministers and magistrates in their assertion and discharge, than from any uncertainty or instability in the principles whereby those rights and duties are regulated.

It has chanced that the consideration, discussion, and decisions upon belligerent rights and neutral duties, has commonly devolved upon those belligerents, who, in case of a maritime war, were not unlikely to be involved as participants in it, either bello flagrante vel bello imminente. This has been eminently the good or bad fortune of England. To this fact may be traced the cause of those arbitrary interpretations, adapted if not designed to mould and modify the public law to suit her precise wishes, wants, and interests. The result has been to produce confusion in her code, and instability

604 ENGLAND, WITHOUT NEUTRAL EXPERIENCE, AWKWARD ;

in her conduct, as a neutral state. So novel is it for England to be neutral, that it is positively embarrassing for her statesmen to remain inactive during a maritime war. The situation is so strange and anomalous, that her awkward deportment fitly corresponds with the situation, betraying itself in arbitrary interpretations or technical misconstructions; both of which are infallible symptoms of recklessness or restlessness in a non-combatant.

The Foreign Enlistment Act, in its provisions, is prohibitory; designed to restrain and not to license. The Queen's proclamation was, in form, framed for a like purpose. It is, in no sense, an authorization; but a general interdiction to her subjects and servants within the realm. Neither of these measures were intended to authorize or encourage or permit unneutral conduct or hostile intervention. All such effects may be ascribed directly to the misconstructions of magistrates, or to the arbitrary interpretations of ministers.

Neutrality is not merely a name; but it is a political predicament, in which a nation may be placed without any formal act on her part, or by her own voluntary and superfluous declaration. Rightly regarded, neutrality means peace. When all nations are neutral, then peace is universal. The advent of war necessarily disturbs this pacific attitude of the nations toward each other; converts some into belligerents, and thereby incidentally exposes neutral commerce to depredation and danger. Whoso, therefore, disturbs the peace of the world, ceases in good faith to be truly neutral. War is ever an extreme measure; the "ultima ratio" of kings, the last resort of good sense among men. It should never be caused by a capricious partisanship; and very

AND HER GOOD FAITH ENDANGERED BY LORD RUSSELL. 605

seldom is it brought on by a want of national good faith. But whenever such an anomaly does occur, the wrong is rarely forgotten, and never forgiven, without reparation. Bad faith becomes a lasting reproach to any people, rendering their sincerity forever equivocal. "Punica fides" lives in history to the discredit of the ancient Carthaginian. The French have fixed and fastened the cognomen "Albion perfide" upon their ancient rival and foe. This stigma, it is hoped, future events may obliterate; and leave England with no reasonable ground for its continuance, or any similar imputation, even if Russell and Palmerston had done their worst, in her behalf, to deserve it.

Should the parties meet for consultation at any future period, either at Washington or elsewhere, it is expected that they will approach the consideration of existing differences calmly, dispassionately, and without egotism or arrogance. It is now a matter of business solely.

Possibly, Lord Russell, by his arrogance, has done more to damage England, and plant a thorn in the side of America than all other men, except his departed Premier. If England be wise, Englishmen sagacious, or John Bright remain as sensible in office as out of it, he may eradicate the thorn which Lord Russell wantonly implanted.

When the Foreign Secretary's attention was officially called to the necessity of further legislation for enforcing the Enlistment Act and royal proclamation, it may be remembered that his reply was in substance, that England was the guardian of her own honor, and did not legislate at the dictation of another power. In this mode of reply there was no real dignity; it was simply an arrogant, insolent, puerile evasion; and should not be

606 ENGLAND, IN ONE SENSE, KEEPER OF HER OWN HONOR;

followed as a model of diplomatic propriety, or sense even. It is, nevertheless, true, that England is the proper custodian of her honor, where others are not concerned and she is clearly right; but it is not so, where other nations are concerned, and England, as one of the family of nations, happens to be wrong: and this view discloses in Lord Russell the infirmity of the man, and, at the same time, reveals the insincerity of the minister.

International law, ex necessitate, supersedes the municipal law, because the principles of the former contain the condensed good sense of nations, to which the latter must yield. Those principles were adopted by the general consent of nations, after having been gathered from known and universal usage. They cannot, therefore, be dispensed with, abridged, or abrogated by any one nation, at its special will and pleasure, without some general consultation or convocation with other nations. Indeed no single nation can capriciously contravene the universally recognized public law. England, then, is not, and cannot be, the exclusive keeper of her honor, whenever the rights and interests of other nations are concerned, and Lord Russell was not quite accurate in his statement, nor felicitous in his expression of it. His vain-glory or defiance was not consistent with that comity and respect which are proverbially due to the accredited representatives of other nations. In this aspect, it was certainly impertinent and constructively insolent for it is, or ought to be, plain to the veriest tyro in politics or diplomacy (the much abused word "statesmanship" is purposely omitted), that no nation of itself, however puissant as a power, can arbitrarily import novel doctrines into the international code,