{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_52587/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_52587","id":"gutenberg_52587","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/52587","summary":null,"tags":["Arbitration (International law)","Category: History - European","Category: History - Modern (1750+)","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Politics","International law","Neutrality"],"text":"PAX MUNDI.\n\n\n\n\n  PAX MUNDI\n\n  A CONCISE ACCOUNT OF THE PROGRESS OF\n  THE MOVEMENT FOR PEACE\n  BY MEANS OF ARBITRATION, NEUTRALIZATION,\n  INTERNATIONAL LAW AND DISARMAMENT\n\n  BY\n\n  K.P. ARNOLDSON\n\n  _Member of the Second Chamber of the Swedish Riksdag_\n\n  AUTHORIZED ENGLISH EDITION\n  WITH AN INTRODUCTION BY THE BISHOP OF DURHAM\n\n  [Illustration]\n\n  London\n\n  SWAN SONNENSCHEIN & CO.\n  PATERNOSTER SQUARE\n  1892\n\n\n\n\n  BUTLER & TANNER,\n  THE SELWOOD PRINTING WORKS,\n  FROME, AND LONDON.\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS.\n\n\n                                                  PAGE\n\n  INTRODUCTION                                     1\n\n  ARBITRATION                                      8\n\n  NEUTRALITY                                      40\n\n  FURTHER DEVELOPMENTS                            82\n\n  THE PROSPECTS                                  138\n\n  APPENDIX                                       165\n\n\n\n\nPREFATORY NOTE.\n\n\nThis little work, written by one who has long been known as a\nconsistent and able advocate of the views herein maintained, has been\ntranslated by a lady who has already rendered great services to the\ncause, in the belief that it will be found useful by the increasing\nnumber of those who are interested in the movement for the substitution\nof Law for War in international affairs.\n\n  J.F.G.\n\n\n\n\nINTRODUCTION TO THE ENGLISH EDITION.\n\n\nIt is natural that the advocates of international Peace should\nsometimes grow discouraged and impatient through what they are tempted\nto consider the slow progress of their cause. Sudden outbursts of\npopular feeling, selfish plans for national aggrandisement, unremoved\ncauses of antipathy between neighbours, lead them to overlook the\ngeneral tendency of circumstances and opinions which, when it is\nregarded on a large scale, is sufficient to justify their loftiest\nhopes. It is this general tendency of thought and fact, corresponding\nto the maturer growth of peoples, which brings to us the certain\nassurance that the Angelic Hymn which welcomed the Birth of Christ\nadvances, slowly it may be as men count slowness, but at least\nunmistakably, towards fulfilment. There are pauses and interruptions\nin the movement; but, on the whole, no one who patiently regards the\ncourse of human history can doubt that we are drawing nearer from\ngeneration to generation to a practical sense of that brotherhood and\nthat solidarity of men--both words are necessary--which find their\nfoundation and their crown in the message of the Gospel.\n\nUnder this aspect the Essay of Mr. Arnoldson is of great value, as\ngiving a calm and comprehensive view of the progress of the course of\nPeace during the last century, and of the influences which are likely\nto accelerate its progress in the near future.\n\nMr. Arnoldson, who, as a member of the Swedish Parliament, is a\npractical statesman, indulges in no illusions. The fulness with which\nhe dwells on the political problems of Scandinavia shows that he is\nnot inclined to forget practical questions under the attraction of\nsplendid theories. He marks the chief dangers which threaten the peace\nof Europe, without the least sign of dissembling their gravity. And\nlooking steadily upon them, he remains bold in hope; for confidence\nin a great cause does not come from disregarding or disparaging the\ndifficulties by which it is beset, but from the reasonable conviction\nthat there are forces at work which are adequate to overcome them.\n\nWe believe that it is so in the case of a policy of Peace; and the\nfacts to which Mr. Arnoldson directs attention amply justify the\nbelief. It is of great significance that since 1794 there have been \"at\nleast sixty-seven instances in which disputes of a menacing character\nhave been averted by arbitration\"; and perhaps the unquestioning\nacceptance by England of the Genevan award will hereafter be reckoned\nas one of her noblest services to the world. It is no less important\nthat since the principle of arbitration was solemnly recognised by\nthe Congress of Paris in 1856, arbitral clauses have been introduced\ninto many treaties, while the question of establishing a universal\nsystem of international arbitration has been entertained and discussed\nsympathetically by many parliaments.\n\nAt the same time Mr. Arnoldson justly insists on the steady increase of\nthe power of neutrals. Without accepting the possibility of \"a Neutral\nLeague,\" he points out how a necessary regard to the interests of\nneutrals restrains the powers which are meditating war. And I cannot\nbut believe that he is right when he suggests that the problems of the\nneutralization of Scandinavia, of Alsace and Lorraine, of the Balkan\nStates, of the Bosphorus and Dardanelles, demand the attention of all\nwho seek to hasten \"the coming peace.\"\n\nIt would be easy to overrate the direct value of these facts; but\ntheir value as signs of the direction in which public opinion is\nrapidly moving can hardly be overrated. They are symptoms of a growing\nrecognition of the obligations of man to man, and of people to people,\nof our common human interests and of our universal interdependence.\n\nI should not lay great stress on the deterrent power of the prospect of\nthe ruinous losses and desolations likely to follow from future wars.\nA great principle might well demand from a nation great sacrifices;\nand the very strength of a policy of Peace lies in the postponement\nof material interests to human duties. But none the less the wide\nexpansion of commercial and social intercourse, joint enterprises, even\nrivalries not always ungenerous, exercise a salutary influence upon\nthe feeling of nation for nation, and make what were once regarded as\nnatural animosities no longer possible.\n\nUnder the action of these forces we are learning more and more to\nendeavour to regard debated questions from the point of sight of\nour adversaries, to take account of their reasonable aspirations, to\nmake allowance for their difficulties, even to consider how they can\nbest render their appropriate service to the race, while we strive no\nless resolutely to keep or to secure the power of fulfilling our own.\nWe could not regard our enemies as our grandfathers regarded theirs.\nAlready the conviction begins to make itself felt that the loss of one\npeople is the loss of all.\n\nMeanwhile the growth of popular power and popular responsibility brings\na wider and more collective judgment to bear upon national questions.\nThe masses of peoples have more in common than their leaders, among\nwhom individual character has fuller development. The average opinion\nof men, when the facts are set forth, responds to pleas of fellowship\nand righteousness, and tends to become dominant.\n\nSuch influences in favour of international Peace spring out of steady\nmovements which, as they continue, will increase them. The past does\nnot limit their power, but simply reveals the line of their action.\nAbove all, they correspond with that view of our Christian faith which\nthe Holy Spirit is disclosing to us by means of the trials of our age.\nThrough many sorrows and many disappointments we are learning that the\nfact of the Incarnation assures to us the unity of men and classes and\nnations; and a wider study of history, which is now possible, shows\nthat the course of events makes for the establishment of that unity for\nwhich we were created.\n\nI cannot therefore but hope that the Essay of Mr. Arnoldson, which\ngives substantial evidence of the reality and growth of this movement\ntowards Peace, will confirm in courageous and patient labour for an\nassured end all who join in the prayer that it may please God \"to give\nto all nations unity, peace, and concord.\"\n\n  B.F. DUNELM.\n\n  AUCKLAND CASTLE,\n  _October 14th, 1891_.\n\n\n\n\nPAX MUNDI.\n\n\n\n\nINTRODUCTION.\n\n\nIt was the small beginning of a great matter when, on December 22nd,\n1620, a hundred Puritans landed from the ship _Mayflower_ upon the\nrocky shore of the New World, having, during the voyage, signed a\nconstitution to be observed by the colonists.\n\nThese pious pilgrims were guided by the conception of religious freedom\nwhich should construct for them there a new kingdom. They had, say the\nannalists of the colony, crossed the world's sea and had reached their\ngoal; but no friend came forth to meet them; no house offered them\nshelter. And it was mid-winter. Those who know that distant clime, know\nhow bitter are the winters and how dangerous the storms which at that\nseason ravage the coast. It were bad enough in similar circumstances\nto travel in a well-known region; but how much worse when it is a\nquestion of seeking to settle on an entirely unknown shore.\n\nThey saw around them only a bare, cheerless country, filled with wild\nanimals and inhabited by men of questionable disposition and in unknown\nnumbers. The country was frozen and overgrown with woods and thickets.\nThe whole aspect was wild; and behind them lay the measureless ocean,\nwhich severed them from the civilized world. Comfort and hope were to\nbe found only in turning their gaze heavenward.\n\nThat they did conquer that ungrateful land and open the way for the\nboundless stream of immigration which for wellnigh three centuries has\nunceasingly poured in, must find its explanation in the faith that\nupheld their ways amid the dangers of the wilderness, amid the hunger,\ncold, and all manner of disheartening things, and gave them that power\nwhich removed mountains and made the desert bloom.\n\nThese Puritans, strong in faith, were the founders of the New World's\ngreatness; and their spirit spoke out to the Old World in the greeting\nwith which the President of the United States consecrated the first\ntransatlantic telegraph cable in 1866:--\n\n\"Glory be to God in the highest, and on earth peace, goodwill to men.\"\n\nWhen this message came to us, the roar of cannon was but newly hushed,\nand the man of \"blood and iron\" had victoriously set his foot upon one\nof Europe's great powers; the same Austria which since then has, by the\nTriple Alliance, united its warlike strength with Germany.\n\nBut that message has not been an unheeded sound to all; especially\nto those whose warning voices the people never listen to before the\nmisfortune falls, but who are always justified after it has struck.\nYes! perchance in the near future it may again appeal to their reason,\nand find a hearing only when Europe has fallen into untold miseries\nafter another war.\n\nWhile menacing forebodings of this long expected war were spreading in\nthe summer of 1887 through various parts of our continent, a little\ncompany of courageous men, strong in faith, like the pious pilgrims of\nthe _Mayflower_, gathered together for the voyage across the sea to\nthe New World, there to lay the foundation of a lasting work for peace.\n\nTheir first object was to present to the President of the United States\nand to Congress an address aiming at the establishment of a Court of\nArbitration, qualified to deal with disputes which might arise between\nGreat Britain and the United States of North America. In that address,\nsigned by 270 Members of the British Parliament, allusion was made to\nthe resolutions on peace which from time to time had been brought into\nCongress; and those who undersigned it declared themselves ready to\nbring all their influence to bear in inducing the Government of Great\nBritain to accept the proposition which should come from the Congress.\nAmongst those who signed it were, besides many distinguished Members of\nthe House of Commons, several peers, including some of the bishops.\n\nThe address was presented to President Cleveland on October 31st, by\na deputation of twelve Members of Parliament, whose spokesman, Mr.\nAndrew Carnegie, in his introductory speech, said: \"Few events in the\nworld's history would rank with the making of such a treaty. Perhaps\nonly two in our own country's history could fitly be compared with\nit. Washington's administration established the republic; Lincoln's\nadministration abolished human slavery. We fondly hope, sir, that\nit may be reserved for yours to conclude a treaty not only with the\ngovernment of the other great English-speaking nation, but with other\nlands as well, which shall henceforth and for ever secure to those\nnations the blessings of mutual peace and goodwill. The conclusion of\nsuch a treaty will have done much to remove from humanity its greatest\nstain--the killing of man by man. And we venture to hope, that if the\ntwo great nations here represented set such an example, other nations\nmay be induced to follow it, and war be thus ultimately banished from\nthe face of the earth.\"\n\nIn the President's favourable answer he mentioned that no nation in its\nmoral and material development could show more victories in the domain\nof peace than the American; and it appeared to him that the land which\nhad produced such proofs of the blessings of peace, and therefore need\nnot fear being accused of weakness, must be in a specially favourable\nposition to listen to a proposal like the present; wherefore he\nreceived it with pleasure and satisfaction.\n\nA week later, Nov. 8th, the son-in-law of Queen Victoria, the Marquis\nof Lorne, presided over a great meeting in London, at which many\neminent men were present. The chairman emphatically remarked in his\nspeech, that the settlement of international disputes by a Court\nof Arbitration has the advantage that, through the delay which is\nnecessary, the first excitement has time to cool. The meeting declared\nitself unanimously in favour of the proposed memorial. Thereupon\nfollowed many similar expressions of opinion in England, whilst\nsimultaneously in twenty of the largest cities of North America mass\nmeetings were held, which with unanimous enthusiasm gave adhesion\nto the cause, and petitions of the same character flowed in to the\nPresident and Congress from the various parts of the great republic.\n\nEncouraged by these preparatory movements amongst the two great\nEnglish-speaking peoples, M. Fr\u00e9d\u00e9ric Passy, with other Members of\nthe Legislative Assembly of France, placed himself at the head of a\nmovement to petition the French Government, requesting that it should\nconclude an Arbitration Treaty with the United States.\n\nSuch a memorial, bearing the signatures of 112 deputies and 16\nsenators, was received with much interest by the President.\n\nOn April 21st, 1888, Passy and forty-four other deputies moved a\nresolution in the Chamber to the same effect; and the idea has been\ncarried forward in many ways since then, especially by a petition to\nthe President of the United States from three International Congresses\nheld in Paris, June 23rd-30th, 1889.\n\n\n\n\nARBITRATION.\n\n\nShould these efforts lead in the near future to the intended result,\nInternational Law would thereby have made an important progress.\n\nIt can no longer be denied that International Law does actually exist;\nbut we undervalue its significance because we are impatient. We do\nnot notice the advances it has made because they have been small;\nbut they have been numerous; and slowly, step by step, international\njurisprudence has progressed. This affects not only the awakening sense\nof justice and acknowledged principles, but also their application,\nwhich from the days of Hugo Grotius, 250 years ago, down to Martens,\nBluntschli, Calvo, and other most distinguished jurists of our day, has\nbeen the subject of great scholarly activity, by means of which the\nvarious regulations of jurisprudence have little by little been pieced\ntogether into a foundation and substance of universally accepted law.\n\nWhat has been most generally done to gain the object in view has\nbeen the INSERTION OF ARBITRAL CLAUSES in treaties which were being\nconcluded or had already been concluded in reference to other\nquestions. In this direction SIGNOR MANCINI of Italy has been\nespecially active. As during the time he was Minister of Foreign\nAffairs he had the concluding of a great number of treaties between\nItaly and other countries, he made use of the opportunity to insert\ninto almost all--in nineteen instances[1]--an arbitral clause.\n\nWe have examples of treaties with such clauses in the commercial\ntreaty between Italy and England, 1883; Norway, Sweden, and Spain, by\na supplement in 1887; also England and Greece, 1886. According to the\nfirst two agreements, all disputes about the right understanding of\nthe treaties shall be settled by arbitration, as soon as it becomes\napparent that it is vain to hope for a friendly arrangement. In the\nGreco-English treaty it is further stipulated that all disputes which\ndirectly or indirectly may arise in consequence of that treaty always\nshall, if they cannot be amicably arranged, be referred to a committee\nof arbitration, which shall be nominated by each party with a like\nnumber of members; also that if this committee cannot agree, there\nshall be appointed a tribunal of arbitration, whose decision both\nnations bind themselves to accept.\n\nThe idea of concluding distinct TREATIES OF ARBITRATION, or of giving a\nwidely extended range to arbitral clauses, so that they should affect\nthe whole relation of the contracting parties to one another, is\ncomparatively new.\n\nSo far as I know, Mr. William Jay was the first who in modern times\nadvocated this idea, in a work which came out in New York in 1842, and\nin which he proposed: that in the next treaty between, for example, the\nUnited States and France, it should be stated that in case any dispute\nshould arise between the two nations, not only in respect of the\ninterpretation of that treaty, but also in respect of any other subject\nwhatever, the dispute should be settled by means of an arbitration by\none or more friendly powers.\n\nA similar proposition was presented to Lord Clarendon in 1853. By\nsending a deputation to the plenipotentiaries at the CONGRESS AT\nPARIS in 1856, the English \"Peace Society\" succeeded in inducing\nthem to introduce into, one of the protocols a solemn recognition\nof the principle of Arbitration. In the name of their governments\nthey expressed the wish that the states between which any serious\nmisunderstanding should arise, should, as far as circumstances\npermitted, submit the question to the arbitration of a friendly power\nbefore resorting to arms. This proposition, which was unanimously\nadopted, was made by Lord Clarendon, the representative of England, and\nsupported by the emissaries of France, Prussia, and Italy,--Walewsky,\nManteufel, and Cavour.\n\nBut the first movement in favour of independent Treaties of Arbitration\ncame up in a petition in 1847, from the English Peace Society to\nParliament.\n\nThe next year this subject was discussed in the Peace Congress at\nBrussels.\n\nA few months later, Cobden brought forward in the House of Commons\nan address to the Government, with the request that the Minister of\nForeign Affairs should be charged to invite foreign powers to enter\ninto treaties with this object. The proposal was in the beginning\nreceived with astonishment and scorn; but called forth later an earnest\nand important debate.\n\nAbout six years later, HENRY RICHARD drew the attention of many\ninfluential members of the American Congress to the relations\nwhich were felt to be favourable for trying to arrange a treaty of\narbitration between Great Britain and the United States. American\nstatesmen, less bound by the old traditions of European diplomacy\nwould, it was thought, be able with greater freedom to attempt such\na novelty. The replies to this application were very favourable and\nencouraging, and in various ways since then attempts have been made to\nrealize the idea.\n\nIN MANY PARLIAMENTS from time to time propositions in this direction\nhave been brought forward and approved.\n\nOn July 8th, 1873, Henry Richard brought before the English Parliament\na proposition requesting the Government to invite negotiation\nwith foreign powers for creating a universal and well-established\ninternational system of arbitration. The then Prime Minister,\nGladstone, expressed himself as favourable to, the proposal, but\nadvised its being withdrawn. Richard, nevertheless, persisted that it\nshould be dealt with, and obtained the remarkable result, that it was\ncarried with a majority of ten.\n\nThis example was followed by the ITALIAN CHAMBER OF DEPUTIES, Nov.\n24th of the same year; and again on July 12th, 1890;[2] by the STATES\nGENERAL OF HOLLAND, Nov. 27th, 1874; by the BELGIAN CHAMBER OF\nREPRESENTATIVES, Dec. 19th, 1875; and shortly after by the SENATE of\nthe United States of America, and CONGRESS also, June 17th, 1874; and\nApril 4th, 1890.\n\nThe last-named resolution of Congress had been accepted by the Senate,\nFeb. 15th of the same year, being recommended by the Committee on\nForeign Affairs, and runs thus:--\n\n The President be, and is hereby requested to invite from time to\n time, as fit occasions may arise, negotiations with any government\n with which the United States has or may have diplomatic relations,\n to the end that any difficulties or disputes arising between them,\n which cannot be adjusted by diplomatic agency, may be referred to\n arbitration, and be peaceably adjusted by such means.\n\nOn May 9th, 1890, Don Arturo de Marcoartu moved in the SPANISH SENATE\nthat the Spanish Government should enter into relations with other\nEuropean powers to bring about a permanent tribunal of arbitration in\nEurope. In the first place, the mover proposed that the states should\ncome to an agreement upon a general truce for five years. In that\ninterval a congress of emissaries from all the European Governments and\nParliaments should be called together. The business of the congress\nshould be to work out a code of international law. The proposition was\nurged, especially with regard to the necessity of finding a reasonable\nsolution of the great social question, since all effort in that\ndirection appears to be hopeless so long as the savings of the nations\nare swallowed up by military expenditure. The Minister of Foreign\nAffairs requested the Senate to take the proposition into serious\nconsideration, and on June 14th the Senate resolved to authorize the\nGovernment to enter into negotiations with foreign powers for the\nobject indicated.\n\nNeither are the Scandinavian Parliaments unaffected by this movement.\n\nAs far back as 1869 the question of arbitration was mooted in the\nSWEDISH PARLIAMENT by Jonas Jonassen. In 1874 he proposed in the second\nchamber that Parliament should submit to the King \"that it would behove\nhis majesty on all occasions that might present themselves to support\nthe negotiations which foreign powers might open with Sweden or with\neach other with reference to the creation of a tribunal of arbitration\nfor the solving of international disputes.\" The committee which dealt\nwith the proposition advised its acceptance. The Lower House passed\nit, March 21st, by seventy-one votes against sixty-four; but the Upper\nHouse rejected it.\n\nThe miserable dealing of the Parliament of 1890 with the question I\nshall have occasion to refer to further on.\n\nIn the same year, the question made surprising advance in NORWAY. On\nMarch 5th the Storting voted on the motion of Ullmann and many others,\nby eighty-nine votes against twenty-four, an address to the King, which\nbegins thus:--\n\n \"The Storting hereby respectfully approaches your Majesty, with the\n request that your Majesty will make use of the authority given by the\n constitution in seeking to enter into agreements with foreign powers,\n for the settling by arbitration of disputes which may arise between\n Norway and those powers.\"\n\nAnd concludes with these words:--\n\n \"In the full assurance that what the Storting here requests will be an\n unqualified benefit to our people, it is hereby submitted that your\n Majesty should take the necessary steps indicated.\"\n\nA similar resolution was very near being voted by the DANISH FOLKETING\nin 1875. The proposition as brought forward was, May 13th, unanimously\nrecommended by the committee in charge, but on account of the\ndissolution of the House two days later, could not be acted upon.\n\nSeveral years ago a petition was circulated in the various districts\nof Denmark, by which Parliament was urged to co-operate as early\nas possible in bringing about a permanent Scandinavian treaty of\narbitration.\n\nIn such a treaty, binding in the first instance for thirty years,\nthe petition affirms that the three northern kingdoms will have an\nefficient moral support when there is occasion to withstand the\nefforts of the great powers to entice or to threaten any of them to\ntake part in war as allies on one side or the other. Such a treaty\nwill, therefore, in great measure serve to preserve the neutrality of\nthe northern kingdoms, and thereby their lasting independence.\n\nThis petition was dealt with in the Folketing, March 27th, 1888. After\na short discussion, the following motion of F. Bajer was passed by\nfifty votes against sixteen.\n\n \"Since the Folketing agrees with the wish expressed in the petition,\n provided it is shared by the other States without whom it cannot be\n carried out, the House passes on to the order of the day.\"\n\nIn his little paper: _On the Prevention of War by Arbitration_, F.\nBajer writes:\n\n \"It may certainly be granted, that a little State like Denmark cannot\n well work at the creation of a European tribunal of arbitration,\n so far as that means setting itself at the head of a movement for\n inviting the other European States to a Congress by which its creation\n shall be adopted.\n\n \"But a little State like Denmark can always do something in the\n direction of arbitration between States. It can bring the matter a\n practical step forward by applying first to the other small States,\n especially to the neighbour States of Sweden and Norway, and proposing\n to them that mutual disputes shall in future, as far as possible, be\n settled by arbitration when other means have failed. The relations\n between the three northern kingdoms are indeed now so friendly that a\n war between them can hardly be thought of for a moment. But--as was\n said in confirmation of the resolution in the first northern Peace\n Meeting, respecting a permanent arbitration treaty between the three\n kingdoms--they have carried on many bloody internecine wars, which\n have only benefited their powerful neighbours, but have been in the\n highest degree injurious to themselves; and the possibility of war\n between the three northern kingdoms is not excluded so long as they\n are not simultaneously neutralized, or in some other way engaged to\n carry out a common foreign policy. It is no longer ago than 1873\n that the so-called \"pilots' war\" in Oeresund caused much bad blood\n among relatives on both sides of the sound. That that was settled\n authoritatively by the mutual declaration of the 14th of August is\n due to circumstances on whose continuance for the future it is not\n possible to reckon. Had a strained relation at the same time obtained\n between one or more of the great powers within or without the Baltic\n ports, and had these endeavoured to sow discord between the coast\n powers, that they might fish in the troubled waters, and feather\n their own nests by getting these small states as their allies; and\n if one power had got Denmark, but its enemy got Sweden-Norway as an\n ally--a new northern fratricidal war would have broken out. Even if\n such a future possibility cannot be entirely eradicated by a mutual\n arbitration treaty amongst the northern nations, a new guarantee for\n peace would be secured.\" (Bluntschli's expression.) \"For the small\n northern kingdoms would by such a treaty acquire an excellent moral\n support when it came to withstanding the attempt of the great powers\n to entice or threaten them into taking part in wars as their allies.\n Such a participation is always a dangerous game, because, as history\n shows, the small States lose rather than gain. The small States are\n used as counters for the great ones to play with.\"\n\nAt this point we may remark, that as far back as 1848, the same year\nthat the Peace Congress was held in Brussels, Feb. 2nd, a treaty (the\nGuadaloupe-Hidalgo Treaty) was concluded between the United States of\nAmerica and Mexico, containing a clause that a committee of arbitration\nshall settle, not only such differences as may arise directly\nconcerning that treaty, but also shall, as the highest authority,\nadjudicate as far as possible all disputes which may arise between the\nhigh contracting States.[3]\n\nSWITZERLAND concluded, July 20th, 1864, a similar treaty with the\nHAWAIAN ISLANDS, and on October 30th with SAN SALVADOR.[4]\n\nSiam, whose monarch has given many proofs of sympathy for Oskar II.,\nconcluded a similar treaty, May 18th, 1868, with the UNITED KINGDOMS,\nand also with BELGIUM, Aug. 29th of the same year.[5] The CENTRAL and\nSOUTH AMERICAN REPUBLICS, HONDURAS, and THE UNITED STATES OF COLOMBIA\ndid the same when on April 10th, 1882, they signed an arbitration\ntreaty between themselves.[6]\n\nSince that time this vigorous idea has grown into the CENTRAL AND SOUTH\nAMERICAN ARBITRATION LEAGUE, and is now making good way towards being\napplied to the whole of America.\n\nThe question now is, whether the VALUE OF PEACE TREATIES, in general\nor in particular, which are established between mutually distant small\nStates can be estimated as highly as the good intention of their\ncreation, which is habitually acknowledged to be good? Are they\nsomething to be depended upon? Will they be carried into effect?\n\nThat depends in the first place upon what is meant by peace treaties.\n\nIf reference is made to certain international settlements which the\nconquered, with hatred in their hearts, bleeding, upon their knees were\nFORCED to accept, we may at once grant that they imply no security\nfor peace, but, on the contrary, are a fresh source of warlike\ncomplications.\n\nThus, for example, the conclusion of peace which France was FORCED to\nsign at Versailles, Feb. 26th, 1871, and by which Alsace-Lorraine was\ntorn from France, became a volcano which now for nineteen years has\nheld the nations in suspense and unrest, and still threatens to ruin\nEurope.\n\nNeither would it be advisable to set much store on such obligations as\nthe Western Powers undertook in the agreement which goes by the name\nof the NOVEMBER TREATY, to help us to defend the northern part of our\npeninsula against Russia; because a guaranteed neutrality implies in\nreality more danger than safety, if the guarantee is not mutual; that\nis, in this instance, if our eastern neighbour is not included in the\nguarantee; which is so far from being the case that the treaty, on the\ncontrary, is a source of menace and distrust to him.[7]\n\nWith respect to certain treaties of alliance, whose object is to\ncollect THE GREATEST POSSIBLE NUMBER OF BAYONETS as a mutual security\nagainst other powers, who, on their side, seek to protect themselves\nby uniting their forces, nobody can see in them anything else than a\nguarantee for an armed peace, which, by the necessity of its nature,\nleads to war.\n\nIf, on the contrary, by peace treaties are meant such international\ncontracts as are NOT WRITTEN IN BLOOD; such as relate to trade and\ncommerce, industry, art, science and so on, it would be in vain to seek\nfor a single instance of the breach of contract, either on the side of\nthe weaker or the stronger.\n\nNeither can any example in our time be pointed to of open violation of\nthe rights of a small country in its quality of an independent State,\nas long as these rights have stood under the mutual guarantee of the\ngreat powers.\n\nAs evidence to the contrary, the London treaty of May 8th, 1853, has\nbeen adduced, which was intended to secure Denmark's neutrality; the\nTreaty of Paris, April 14th, 1856, respecting the Black Sea; and the\nfifth article of the Peace of Prague in 1866. But here the fault lies\nin a misunderstanding.\n\nWhat the Treaty of London established was not the indivisibility of\nDenmark, but of the Dano-German monarchy. The German territory was to\nbe fast linked to the Danish. This was admitted, as a principle, by the\ntreaty to be fitting and right, but the treaty contained no trace of\nstipulations as to guarantee.\n\nWith respect to Russia's breach of treaty of the stipulations as to\nher banishment from the Black Sea as a military power,[8] it must\nbe remembered that the representatives of the powers, and of Russia\nalso, on January 17th, 1871, signed a protocol, whereby it was\nsettled as an essential axiom in international law, that no power can\nabsolve itself from the obligations which are entered into by treaty\nwithout the consent of the contracting parties. Therefore Russia\nopenly acknowledged that her declaration of not choosing to abide\nby the injunctions stipulated for in the Treaty of Paris respecting\nthe Black Sea, was precipitate, and that, consequently, the treaty\nwas permanently in force until it was formally abrogated. This took\nplace in the new treaty of March 3rd, of the same year. Besides, here\ncomes in what was said above about the value of such treaties as are\nconcluded after brute force has determined the issue. And this not only\nwas the case in the Black Sea stipulations, but also with respect to\nthe unfulfilled promises of article 5 of the Treaty of Prague, whereby\nthe Danish people was to be given the opportunity for a plebiscite in\ndetermining upon their reunion with Denmark. As to the peace treaties\nbetween the lesser States, which certainly have important trade\nrelations one with another, but which, on account of their mutually\ndistant position, cannot reasonably be expected to go to war with each\nother, it is true that one cannot in general attribute any special\nimportance to them. Nothing is gained by over-estimating their value.\nBut they deserve to be brought forward as enrichments of international\nlaw and guide-posts for other States. And that the small States need\nnot wait until the great ones are ready to unite appears just as much\nin accordance with the nature of the case as with the interests of\ntheir own well-being.\n\nCalvo, undeniably the first authority in these matters, emphasizes\nas a significant fact, that no single example can be pointed to in\nwhich States, after their mutual disputes have been referred to the\nconsideration or judgment of arbitrators, have sought to _withdraw from\nthe operation_ of the decision. And according to Henry Richard and\nother authorities, by allowing international questions to be settled by\narbitration, at least in sixty-seven instances, disputes of a menacing\ncharacter have been averted.\n\nI shall not here give a detailed account of all these instances, but\nonly with the greatest conciseness refer to some of them.\n\nIn 1794 a contest between England and the United States of America\nrespecting St. Croix river was settled by arbitration; in 1803\nFrance was in the same way condemned to pay 18 million francs to the\nUnited States of America for unlawful seizure of vessels; in 1818 a\nthreatening dispute between Spain and the United States of America was\nsettled by arbitration, and a contention between these and England was\narranged by the Emperor of Russia, who was chosen as arbitrator, etc.\n\nThe best known of such disputes was the so-called Alabama question,\nwhich threatened a desolating world-war. This affair sprang out of the\nNorth American civil war 1861-65. The Southern States had privateers\nbuilt in England, among which the _Alabama_ especially wrought great\nmischief to the Northerners. The Government of the Union considered\nthat England had broken her neutrality in allowing the equipment of\nthe privateer, and requested compensation.\n\nA bitter feeling grew up and war appeared inevitable. But on January\n24th, 1869, an agreement was happily entered into, which, with fresh\nnegotiations, led to the Washington treaty, May 8th, 1871. In harmony\nwith this the dispute was referred for settlement to a Court of\nArbitration consisting of five members, of which England and the United\nStates each chose one, and the neutral states of Italy, Switzerland,\nand Brazil, likewise each chose one. These five met on December 15th,\n1871, as a tribunal of arbitration, at Geneva, and delivered their\njudgment on September 14th following (four votes against England's\none), that the English Government had made a breach in its duty\nas a neutral power with respect to some of the privateers under\nconsideration, and therefore England would have to pay an indemnity of\n15-1/2 million dollars to the United States.[9]\n\nEngland bowed to the award and fulfilled her duty.\n\nIn the same way the powerful insular kingdom voluntarily submitted\nto settlement in the weary contention regarding the possession of\nDelagoa Bay and the surrounding region on the east coast of Africa. The\ndispute was entrusted for settlement, in 1874, to the President of the\nFrench Republic, MacMahon, and he decided in July, 1875, in favour of\nPortugal. That the new contention between these two States, which for\nsome time now has excited an inflammable spirit, not only in Portugal,\nbut in other countries as well, will be arranged in the same friendly\nmanner, there is but little doubt.\n\nThe claim of Portugal is much older than that of England. Its special\nground is the discovery of the coast which was made by Portuguese\nmariners three hundred years ago. The Portuguese urge, that since\nthe coast is theirs, they have a right to go as far inland as they\nchoose and place the country thus entered under their dominion. They\nsay further, that they have made a treaty with a native ruler over a\nkingdom which stretches far inland, and that ruined fortresses are\nstill to be found which show that they once had this distant region\nin possession. To this assertion Lord Salisbury answers, that where\nruined fortresses are found they only testify to fallen dominion. The\nEnglish Government could not recognise Portugal's construction of the\ncontested question; according to that construction the question would\nvirtually turn upon the possession of Shireland and Mashonaland (the\ninland country north and south of the Zambesi). It denied Portugal's\nclaim to this territory as so entirely groundless that it could not\nenter into such a question; but has on the other hand made a peremptory\nclaim, arising from Portugal's violence towards the natives who are\nunder England's protection, for dishonour to the English flag, and for\nother international offences, etc.\n\nThe right of possession of the regions in question can no longer\nbe regarded as doubtful, since Portugal had set aside the general\ninternational axiom, that the claim for possession according to\ncolonial usage can only be held valid when colonization is actually\ncarried out to the furtherance of civilization and public safety.\nPortugal's assertion that the signatories of the Congo Act would be\nthe right adjudicators of the question was denied, upon the ground\nthat Portugal had delayed to make her claim valid when Nyassaland was\ndeclared to belong to the sphere of England's interests. On July 1st,\n1889, the Under-secretary, Sir James Fergusson, in the Lower House,\nexplained that the Portuguese Government had been informed that they\nwould be held answerable for all loss which Englishmen might suffer\nby the annulling of the Delagoa railway convention. The same day Lord\nSalisbury informed the Upper House that the English Government would\nsend three war-ships to Delagoa Bay, to be ready in case of need.\nPortugal's conduct was, in his opinion, unjustifiable.\n\nThen came the noble lord's ultimatum, with the demand that Portugal\nshould recall all Portuguese officers and troops from the territory\nwhich stands under the sovereignty of England or lies within the sphere\nof England's interests, and give an answer within twenty-four hours;\notherwise England would be compelled to break off her relations with\nPortugal. This threatening manner of procedure, by which a weaker\nnation was humbled by superior power, roused bad blood in Portugal and\nwas sharply censured in many parts of Europe; yes, even in England,\nand in Parliament, in the press, and at many great public meetings.\nAt one of these meetings, composed of 700 workmen delegates from\nvarious parts of England and 130 Members of Parliament, in quality\nof vice-presidents, it was unanimously resolved to protest against\nLord Salisbury's conduct as at variance with the dignity of the\nBritish nation; and to request that the dispute should be settled by\narbitration--so much the rather, as the more certain one is of being\nin the right, the more confidently can one's cause be placed in the\nhands of an impartial tribunal. Later on the English Government,\ntogether with the North American virtually resolved on this expedient\nfor solving, the difficulties relating to Delagoa Bay. Portugal made\ndifficulties and delays, but at length declared herself willing to\nenter into a proposal for arbitration.[10] All three States were now\nunited in asking the Government of Switzerland to choose three of her\nmost distinguished jurist officials as arbitration judges.\n\nAt the time when the first Anglo-Portuguese contest was settled by the\nPresident of the French Republic there occurred a second example of\nboth importance and interest. For many years there had been a menacing\nboundary dispute between Italy and Switzerland, just a little seed of\nquarrel, such as formerly always broke out into bloody strife, since\naccording to the traditions of national honour not an inch of a patch\nof ground must be given up except at the sword's point. But the two\nkingdoms decided to commend the case to an arbitrator, viz., the United\nStates minister in Rome, P. Marsh, who, after a careful study of the\nclaims of the contending parties, declared judgment in favour of Italy,\nand so the contention was adjusted.\n\nTwo DANGEROUS DISPUTES, which in 1874-75 and 1880 threatened an\noutbreak of war between CHINA and JAPAN, but were happily solved by\narbitration, might be named, but for fear of being prolix I dare not go\nmore particularly into them, instructive as they are.\n\nThe first arose as a result of a murder of some Japanese on the island\nof Formosa, and was settled by the English minister in Pekin, who was\nchosen by both parties as arbitrator, who decided that China should\ngive Japan in redress a large sum of money, which was done.[11]\n\nThe second of these disputes concerned the sovereignty of the Liu\nKiu Islands, and was adjusted by a compromise brought about by\nex-president Grant, who in a conversation with the Chinese Minister\nuttered these memorable words: \"An arbitration between two nations\nwill never satisfy both nations alike; but it always satisfies the\nconscience of humanity.\"[12]\n\nNot to be tedious, I pass over here many other remarkable instances in\nwhich war and lesser misfortunes have been averted by arbitration; and\nwill now name further only some of the latest date.\n\nIn 1887 a lengthened dispute about boundaries between CHILI and the\nARGENTINE REPUBLIC was adjusted by arbitration, through the mediation\nof the United States Ministers in the two countries. After a complete\nand precise fixing of the boundary line, an agreement was added: That\nthe Straits of Magellan shall for ever be neutralized; free passage\nshall be secured to ships of all nations, and the erection of forts or\nother military works on either of its shores shall be forbidden.\n\nFresh in the memory is the passionate quarrel between SPAIN and GERMANY\nabout the CAROLINE ISLANDS. That was submitted, on Prince Bismarck's\nproposal, to Pope Leo XIII. for settlement, and was adjusted by him.\n\nMost people now living remember the AFGHANISTAN BOUNDARY question,\nwhich was happily solved by the friendliness on both sides of the\nRUSSIAN AND ENGLISH Governments. The whole world followed for a while\nthat dispute with anxiety and disquietude. The press unhappily, as\nusual, employed its influence in stirring up the national passions\nin both countries. But before it had gone too far, fortunately the\nfeelings were quieted by the public being reminded that both England\nand Russia had taken part in the resolution of the Paris Congress,\nwhich declared that when any serious dispute arose between any of\nthe contracting powers, it should be referred to the mediation of a\nfriendly power. Upon this ground the English Government proposed to the\nRussian that the \"dispute should be referred to the ruler of a friendly\nState, to be adjusted in a manner consistent with the dignity of both\nlands.\" This proposal was accepted, but did not come into practice. It\nwas not needed. The Afghanistan boundary commission itself carried out\nits duties to a successful issue.\n\nStill later many smaller INTERNATIONAL DISPUTES have been solved by\narbitration; for instance:--\n\nBetween ITALY and COLOMBIA in South America, respecting Italian\nsubjects who had suffered loss through the last revolution in Colombia,\nin which Spain as arbitrator decided in favour of Italy.\n\nBetween BRAZIL and ARGENTINA respecting their boundaries, a dispute in\nwhich both parties appealed for a settlement to the President of the\nUnited States of America, and which was adjusted by him.\n\nBetween the UNITED STATES of North America and DENMARK, in which the\nlatter was, by the chosen arbitrator, the English Ambassador at Athens,\nSir Edward Monson, after long delay freed from the obligation to pay\ncompensation to the Americans, because the Danish authorities had fired\nat an American ship which in 1854 was escaping out of the harbour of\nSt. Thomas, and which was suspected of carrying supplies to Venezuela,\nat that time in insurrection.\n\nIn conclusion it can be urged,--\n\nThat FRANCE and HOLLAND agreed to have the boundary between their\npossessions in Guiana determined by arbitration.[13]\n\nThat the international committee which met in Washington to arrange the\nimpending fishery question between GREAT BRITAIN, CANADA and the UNITED\nSTATES, decided to recommend the creation of a permanent tribunal of\narbitration for adjusting future disputes respecting these relations;\nalso:\n\nThat the council of the Swiss Confederation, at the combined request of\nPORTUGAL and of the CONGO STATE Government has undertaken to arbitrate\nthe possible disputes which may arise respecting the regulation of\nboundaries amongst their African territories.\n\nBesides these and other instances which I am acquainted with, many\nothers have certainly taken place, though attracting less attention.\n\nThe idea of arbitration goes peacefully and quietly forward, and the\nworld therefore takes little notice of it.\n\nIt is quite otherwise with the crash of war, whose external show of\ngreatness and glory, and whose inward hatred and crime, are desolating\nthe happiness of the nations and are accompanied by distress and gloom.\n\nThe one is a fearful hurricane which rends the mountains and breaks in\npieces the rocks.\n\nThe other is the still small voice, mightier than the devastating\nstorm, since it speaks to us in the name of everlasting righteousness,\nbecause it is the voice of God.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 1: Mazzoleni, in his \"L'Italia nel movimento per la Pace,\"\ngives twenty instances. See pp. 58, 59. TRANS.]\n\n[Footnote 2: On a motion by Ruggiero Bonghi, supported by Crispi in\na speech in which he said that the future depended upon a European\ntribunal of arbitration.]\n\n[Footnote 3: See Martens' \"Nouveau recueil g\u00e9n\u00e9ral,\" xiv. p. 32 (art\nxxi.), and Calvo, \"Droit International,\" II., \u00a7 1499.]\n\n[Footnote 4: According to a Manuscript by President Louis Ruchonnet,\naddressed to F. Bajer.]\n\n[Footnote 5: See \"Svensk f\u00f6rfaltningssamling,\" 1869, No. 74, page 26,\nand \"Lois Beiges,\" 1869, No. 36, \u00a7 24. In the Swedish-Siamese treaty,\nart. 25, it is stated: \"Should any disagreement arise between the\ncontracting parties which cannot be arranged by friendly diplomatic\nnegotiation or correspondence, the question shall be referred for\nsolution to a friendly neutral power, mutually chosen, whose decision\nthe contracting powers shall accept as final.\" Similar agreements are\nto be concluded between Italy and Switzerland, Spain and Uruguay, Spain\nand Hawaii, and between France and Ecuador.]\n\n[Footnote 6: The Treaty is given word for word in the _Herald of\nPeace_, July, 1883.]\n\n[Footnote 7: In this treaty, which was concluded at Stockholm, Nov.\n21st, 1855, the King of Norway and Sweden bound himself not to resign\nto Russia, or to barter with her, or otherwise allow her to possess,\nany portion of the territory of the united kingdoms, nor to grant to\nRussia right of pasture or fishery, or any similar rights, either on\nthe coast of Norway or Sweden. Any Russian proposal which might be made\nunder this head must be made directly to France or England, who then\nby sea and land must support us by their military power. A glorious\ncontrast to the declaration of neutrality, Dec. 15th, 1853!]\n\n[Footnote 8: Conquered Russia had to bind herself, at the conclusion of\npeace, not to keep war ships in the Black Sea, not to have any haven\nfor war ships on her coasts. Stipulations which were perceived by all\nthinking men at the time to be untenable in the long run.]\n\n[Footnote 9: \u00a33,196,874 were received by Sec. Fish, Sept. 9th, 1873.\nSee Haydn's \"Dictionary of Dates.\"]\n\n[Footnote 10: _The Arbitrator_, 1890, April.]\n\n[Footnote 11: The Japanese Government demanded redress, which was at\nfirst refused by China. This led to a stormy correspondence, which at\nlast became so bitter that both sides prepared for war. The Japanese\ntroops had already taken possession of Formosa. During this dangerous\njuncture, the British minister in Pekin, Sir Thomas Wade, offered to\nmediate as an arbiter. The offer was accepted, and led to an agreement\nbetween the Chinese Government and the Japanese ambassador in Pekin,\nby which China was to pay Japan 50,000 taels, and the Japanese troops\nwere to evacuate Formosa. When Lord Derby, who was at that time Foreign\nSecretary of Great Britain, received a telegram from Sir Thomas Wade\nrespecting this happy result, he answered him: \"It is a great pleasure\nto me to present to you the expression of the high esteem with which\nher Majesty's Government regards you for the service you have rendered\nin thus peaceably adjusting a dispute which otherwise might have had\nunhappy consequences, especially to the two countries concerned,\nbut also for the interests of Great Britain and other parties to\ntreaties.\" Sir Harry Parkes, the English minister in Japan, wrote to\nLord Derby, that the Mikado, the Emperor of that land, had invited him\nto an interview for the purpose of expressing his satisfaction at the\nresult, and through him to present his warm thanks for his brave and\nefficient service. The Japanese minister in London also called upon\nLord Derby and expressed the thanks of his Government to Mr. Wade. \"He\ncould assure me,\" said Lord Derby, when he repeated the words of his\nexcellency, \"that the service which has thus been rendered will remain\nin grateful remembrance among his countrymen.\"]\n\n[Footnote 12: This dispute had assumed quite a serious and menacing\ncharacter when the ex-president Grant, on his journey round the world,\ncame to China. When his arrival became known, the Chinese prince, Kung,\nsubmitted to him that he should use his great influence in mediating\nbetween the two countries. A specially interesting conversation\nfollowed: \"We have,\" said Prince Kung, \"studied international law\nas it is set forth by English and American authors, whose works are\ntranslated into Chinese. If any value is to be set upon principles\nof international right, as set forth by the authors of your nation,\nthe doing away with the independence of the Liu Kiu Islands is an\ninjustice.\" Grant reminded him that he was there only as a private\nindividual, but added, \"It would be a true joy to me if my advice or\nefforts could be the means of preserving peace, especially between\ntwo nations for whom I cherish such interest as for China and Japan.\"\nImmediately afterwards he returned to Tokio, the capital of Japan,\ncalled upon the Emperor and his Minister, and advocated a peaceable\nsettlement of the dispute. He wrote to Prince Kung the result of his\nmediation, and produced a scheme for a Court of Arbitration.]\n\n[Footnote 13: At the Peace of Utrecht, 1713, it was decided that the\ncourse of the river Maronis was the boundary. But that river divides\nitself into two branches which embrace a large tract of land, almost\na fifth part of French Guiana. Neither France nor Holland had claimed\nthat land until gold beds were discovered there, and it had to be\ndecided which of the two arms of the river was to be considered as the\nMaronis, and which as a tributary.]\n\n\n\n\nNEUTRALITY.\n\n\nSide by side with the idea of arbitration, another pacific idea,\nalready powerful, is pressing forward, and growing into an\nInternational Law, namely, the Law of Neutrality.\n\nHe is neutral, who neither takes part for, nor against, in a dispute.\nNeutrality is the impartial position which is not associated with\neither party. The State is called neutral which neither takes part in a\nwar itself, nor in time of war sides with any of the warring parties.\n\nIn ancient times neutrality was not understood as a national right.\nNeither the Greek nor the Latin language has any word to express\nthe idea. In the days when Roman policy was seeking to drag all the\nnations of the earth into its net, the Romans saw in other peoples only\ntributaries who had been subdued by their armies, subject nations who\nhad submitted to the Roman yoke, allies who were compelled to join in\ntheir policy of conquest, or lastly enemies, who sooner or later would\nhave to bow before their victorious legions. Neutral States there were\nnone.\n\nThe centuries immediately following the dissolution of the Western\nRoman Empire were filled with constant strife. This continued long\nbefore the refining power which exists in the heart of Christianity\nbegan to show itself in the foreign relations of States.\n\nThe foundations of modern Europe were laid in war.\n\nDuring the Crusades the whole of our continent was under arms. The\nstruggle against the \"infidel\" was not simply a contest between one\nState and another, it was also a contest between Christian Europe and\nMohammedan Asia. To be neutral in such a struggle would, according to\nthe judgment of the time, have been equivalent to denying the faith.\nWithin the European States, feudalism exerted no less a hindrance to\nthe embodiment of the principle of neutrality. It would have been\nthought the gravest crime to loosen the bond of military service which\ncompelled vassals to support with arms the cause of their feudal lords.\nIt was only with the close of the age of feudalism, when Europe began\nto separate into three or four great monarchies, that neutrality in\npolitics became a means of preserving the balance.\n\nIn later times increasing COMMUNICATION and TRADE have above all\ncontributed to the development of neutral laws. Without the sanction\nof these, a naval war between two great nations would have made any\nmaritime trade all but impossible. Down to the close of the last\ncentury, however, neutral rights were dependent either on national\nstatutes or on special treaties concluded between one State and\nanother. The law only gained certain international importance towards\nthe close of the eighteenth century through the NEUTRAL ALLIANCES which\nfrom time to time were contracted between States.\n\nIn the period between 1780 and 1856 the subject gained an entrance by\ndegrees among all maritime nations except England, who, independent\nof it, and always relying on her own strength, continuously sought to\nmaintain unlimited domination at sea.\n\nIn 1854-56 begins, so far as neutrality is concerned, a new era of\ninternational law.\n\nFrom this time the opposition which England raised to the practical\napplication of neutrality in naval war may be regarded as having\nbroken down. On the 30th of March, 1854, the French Minister of Foreign\nAffairs, Drouyn de Lhuys, published a communication, including, amongst\nother things, that the neutral flag during the then begun (Crimean)\nwar, should be regarded as a protection for all neutral and hostile\nprivate property, except contraband of war. The same day the English\nGovernment gave forth in the _London Gazette_ a similar declaration,\nand on April 19th of the same year the Russian Government notified in\nthe _Official Gazette_ of St. Petersburg that Russia would, during that\nwar, act upon the same rules as the Allied powers.\n\nThe provisions, which thus the Western powers on one side, and\nRussia on the other, believed themselves bound to observe towards\nneutral states, were at the Peace of Paris, 1856, solemnly ratified\nas International Law in force for all time. The principles which the\nplenipotentiary signatories of the Peace Treaty of Paris agreed upon in\na proclamation of April 16th, 1856, are as follows:--\n\n1. Privateering is and shall be abolished. 2. The neutral flag shall\nprotect property belonging to the enemy, with the exception of\ncontraband of war. 3. Neutral goods, except contraband of war, may\nnot be seized under the enemy's flag. 4. Blockades in order to be\nobligatory must be fully effectual; that is, shall be maintained with a\nstrength really sufficient to prevent approach to the enemy's coast.\n\nThe Governments which signed the treaty bound themselves also, in this\nproclamation, to communicate the resolutions to the States which were\nnot called to take part in the Paris Conference, and to invite them to\nagree in these decisions. All the European States except Spain, and a\nnumber of powers outside Europe, declared themselves ready to carry out\nin practice the entire resolutions of the proclamation.\n\nMany wars since then have shaken Europe; but under all these\nmisfortunes the warring States have not only conscientiously observed\nthe principles laid down in 1856, but they have gone further, in\ncertain points, in applying them, than they by it were bound to do.\nThus the Austrian Government issued an order, during the war with\nFrance and Sardinia, with respect to maritime national law, in many\npoints far beyond what hostile or neutral powers had any ground for\nrequesting. The Imperial decree not only charged its military and civil\nofficers to follow strictly the injunctions of the proclamation, but\nSardinian and French vessels, which lay moored in Austrian waters, were\nalso to be permitted to load freight and proceed to foreign seas, on\ncondition that they took on board no contraband of war or prohibited\ngoods of any description. Immediately on the outbreak of war, the same\nprinciples were adopted by France and Sardinia. These States, however,\nwent a step further than Austria, inasmuch as they unreservedly\ndeclared that they would not regard coal as a contraband of war.\n\nDuring the Dano-German War, in 1864, and the war between Austria and\nPrussia and Italy, in 1866, the international principles of maritime\nlaw received a similarly wide interpretation.\n\nDuring the North American Civil War important questions came up, which\nmore or less affected the principle of neutrality. The question, which\nbecame one of the greatest importance, arose in respect of the injury\nwhich the commerce and navigation of the Union suffered during the war\nfrom various privateers which were built in England on the Southerners'\naccount.\n\nThe ALABAMA QUESTION took its name from the privateer which went out\nfrom Liverpool and occasioned the greatest devastation while the\nwar lasted. Although the executive of the Union at Washington duly\ndirected the attention of the English Government to the fact that\nallowing the pirate to leave the English port would be equivalent to\na breach of the peace, yet the Government took no measures to prevent\nthe vessel leaving. The American Government, who with reason regarded\nthis omission as a violation of the laws of neutrality, claimed from\nEngland full compensation for the property which had been destroyed\nin the course of the civil war by the Southern privateer which came\nfrom an English port. I have previously given more particularly the\nconstitution and functions of the Court of Arbitration appointed to\nsettle the threatening dispute which arose on this occasion. The\narbitration award had to be adjudicated in accordance with the three\nfollowing fundamental principles of international law:--\n\nA neutral Government is bound:--\n\n1. To guard assiduously against any vessel being armed or equipped\nin its ports, which there is reason to believe would be employed for\nwarlike purposes against a peaceful power, and with equal assiduity to\nprevent any vessel designed for privateering, or other hostility, from\nleaving the domain of the neutral State:\n\n2. Not to allow any belligerent power to make use of its ports or\nharbours as the basis of its operations, or for strengthening or\nrepairing its military strength, or for enlisting:\n\n3. To use every care within its ports and harbours and over all persons\nwithin its domain, to prevent any violation of the obligations named.\n\nThe contracting parties to this treaty agreed to hold themselves\nresponsible for the future, and to bring them before the notice of\nother Maritime powers, with the recommendation that they also should\nenter into them.\n\nThe historical facts here produced show that the mutual interest\nnations have in the inviolability of the seas has effectually\ncontributed to the development of an accepted international law.\n\nWhen the necessity of making the principles of neutrality binding at\nsea was once understood, it was not long before the value of adopting\nthem on land became apparent.\n\nIn the documents, for instance, by which Belgium, Switzerland and\nLuxemburg are neutralized, it is distinctly stated that the permanent\nneutrality of these States is in full accord with the true interests of\nEuropean policy.\n\nAccording to the actual modern law of nations, there is a permanent\nneutrality guaranteed by international deeds of law and treaties, and\none occasionally resting upon free decisions.[14]\n\nAs instances of permanent and guaranteed neutrality, we have: The\nNEUTRALIZATION OF SWITZERLAND. Ever since the unhappy Italian war in\nthe beginning of the sixteenth century, the Swiss Confederation has\nendeavoured to assure to the country the security which neutrality\ngives.\n\nThis neutrality was recognised and guaranteed by the great European\npowers at the Congress of Vienna in 1815 (art. 84 and 92), and later\nwas further solemnly confirmed by a special act of the powers at Paris,\nNov. 20th of the same year, in which it was stated:\n\n\"The powers declare ... by a permanent act that the permanent\nneutrality and inviolability of Switzerland, as well as its\nindependence of foreign influence, accords with the true interests of\nEuropean policy.\"[15]\n\nTHE NEUTRALIZATION OF BELGIUM. In virtue of the Treaty of London, Nov.\n15th, 1831 (art. vii.), further confirmed by the powers April 19th,\n1839, a permanent neutrality was awarded to Belgium.\n\nThis country, which for centuries had served as a battle-ground for\nforeign powers, especially for France and Germany, was hereby secured\nagainst such dangers, and at the same time the field for European\nwarfare was materially narrowed.\n\nArticle vii. of the London protocol runs thus: \"Belgium shall, within\nthe boundaries established in art. i. and iv., form an independent\nState. The kingdom is bound to observe the same neutrality towards all\nStates.\"[16]\n\nDuring the Franco-German war 1870-1, the neutralization of Belgium was\nthreatened with violation by France, and further guarantees were given\nin new protocols arranged by England.\n\nTHE NEUTRALIZATION OF THE ARCHDUCHY OF LUXEMBURG resulted from the\nLondon protocol of May 11th, 1867.\n\nAs an evidence of the power and importance in our day of entering into\nagreements of neutrality, the following may be adduced:--\n\nDuring the Franco-German war, 1870-1, the Prussian Government\ncomplained to the guaranteeing powers of conduct at variance with\nneutrality on the part of Luxemburg, and threatened no longer to\nrespect the neutrality of the Archduchy. (Despatch of Prince Bismarck,\nDec. 3rd, 1870.)\n\nIn consequence of this, Count Beust, the Austrian chancellor, in an\nopinion given Dec. 22nd of the same year, remarked, that upon the\nground of the principle of European guarantee, it belonged to the\npowers who had signed the document of neutralization, to inquire into\nand to settle whether a violation had taken place on the part of the\nneutral State, and not to one of the belligerent powers.[17]\n\nBesides the States named, a permanent neutrality has been secured to\nthe IONIAN ISLANDS according to the treaties of London, 1863-64; and\nalso to the SAMOAN ISLANDS, in virtue of the agreement between England,\nGermany, and the United States of North America, whereby, amongst\nother things, it was settled that in case of any difference of opinion\narising; an appeal should be made to arbitration; and that a supreme\ntribunal should be created with a supreme judge, whom the King of\nSweden and Norway has been empowered to name.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nOne general advantage which neutralization affords is the\nsimplification with respect to foreign policy thereby obtained.\n\nThe attitude of a neutralized State can be reckoned on beforehand by\nall parties.\n\nIn proportion to its military importance and position, a neutral\ncountry constitutes in many ways a security to all the powers.\n\nIt is in close connection with neutralization that in these days an\never-growing need is becoming apparent to localize wars as much as\npossible; that is, to confine them to those who begin them.\n\nAs a result of the extraordinarily rapid development of world-wide\ntrade and intercourse, and the consequent community of interests, a war\nbetween two States necessarily occasions more or less derangement to\nthe rest.\n\nIn this increasing solidarity lies the surest guarantee that neutrality\nwill be respected.\n\nWe may already be justified in drawing the conclusion that the security\nof neutral States will continually increase.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nSupported upon these foundations of history and of international\nlaw, a discussion was raised on the neutralization of Sweden, in the\nFirst Chamber by Major C.A. Adelsk\u00f6ld, and by myself in the Second,\nin the hope thereby not only to oppose the King's bill for the\nextension of the war department, but also especially to open the way\nfor a profitable solution of the tough, old, threadbare question of\nDefence.[18]\n\nBefore this resolution was brought into the Riksdag, I had read it to\nseventy members of the Riksdag, who unanimously accepted it, as did\nalso, later on, in the main, a majority of the [Norwegian] Storting.\n[19]And as soon as the purport of the resolution became generally known\nthrough the press, there came in from popular meetings all over Sweden\nnumerous congratulatory addresses to Major Adelsk\u00f6ld and myself.\n\nBut from its very commencement the proposition met with an\nunconquerable opposition from those in power.\n\nWith great unanimity efforts were made in this quarter to depreciate\nthe value and the historical importance of the principle of neutrality.\nAll possible means were used with this object, to touch the tenderest\nfibres of the national feelings. It would be a disgrace to us, it was\nsaid, to employ any other than military power in asserting our primeval\nfreedom. We should thereby break off from our glorious history, and\ndraw a black line over its brilliant warlike reminiscences. There were\ncertainly neutral countries to be found, but their neutrality was not\nthe result of their own desire, but proceeded from the great powers\nthemselves. Should we then, they say further, be the first people to\ntake such a step? Would it not be equivalent to begging peace of our\nneighbour, and declaring ourselves incapable before the whole world?\nThe sensible thing would be to further develop and strengthen our army.\nThe resolution was called a political demonstration of indigence; a\ndisgusting nihilist plot, and so on. One member of the Riksdag proposed\nthat it should be consigned to a committee charged with arranging for\nsending beasts abroad. Scoffs came thick as hail; and when it became\nknown that the mover in the _Second Chamber_ was its author, the really\nguilty one, he was branded as a universal traitor,--just as the year\nbefore, when he raised a peaceable question about extended liberty of\nconscience.\n\nIn my defence of the resolution in the Riksdag, I sought to anticipate\nall objections to it which were worthy of notice.[20]\n\nAmongst these I give special attention to the following five:--\n\n 1. \"The powers will not enter into the neutralization of Sweden.\n\n 2. \"But if, contrary to expectation, they did, the safety of the\n country would gain nothing by it.\n\n 3. \"On the contrary, our independence would be diminished by a\n guaranteed neutrality.\n\n 4. \"Without lessening our military burdens for defence.\n\n 5. \"The proposition is untimely.\"\n\nWith regard to the first objection, _viz._, that the powers would not\nenter upon Sweden's neutralization, it appears to me that circumstances\nof great weight imply the contrary.\n\nWe may be quite sure that the powers will first and foremost consult\ntheir own interests. Scandinavia may be certainly regarded as specially\nvaluable as a base of military operations to any of the great Baltic\nand Western States. But it would be quite a matter of consideration,\nwhether these powers would not gain more by the reciprocal security of\nbeing all alike cut off from this base, than by the doubtful advantage\nof being possibly able to reckon upon Scandinavia as an ally.\n\nA neutralized Scandinavia would be a Switzerland among the seas; a\nbreakwater in the way between England and France on the one side,\nand Russia and Germany on the other. In case of a war between these\ngreat powers it would now be of considerable moment for any of them to\nget the powers along the coasts of the Sound and the Belts, upon its\nside. And how difficult it would be for the latter to preserve their\nneutrality during such a war, must be evident to everybody.\n\nSo the interests are seen to be equally great on all sides. It may\ntherefore be deemed prudent to establish, in time, a permanent\nneutrality of the powers along the coast. Here, according to my view,\nlies a great problem for the foreign secretaries of the united kingdoms\nand Denmark.\n\nMy reason for speaking here of neutralizing the whole of Scandinavia\nis, that I am convinced that the brother-nations take entirely the same\nview as the Swedish. With respect to the general interests of European\npeace, the neutralization of Scandinavia would be more important than\nthat of Switzerland and Belgium, because the interests of the great\npowers are greater and more equally balanced around the Scandinavian\nNorth than around those two small continental States.\n\nWe have old friends in the Western powers; we have gained a new friend\nin united Germany and by the neutralization of Scandinavia we shall\nnot only make friendship with Russia, but Denmark will gain that of\nGermany, perhaps causing the last-named power to fulfil its duty to\nDenmark with respect to North Sleswick, seeing that it need no longer\nfear that its small neighbour would ever be forced into an alliance\nwith a powerful enemy of Germany.\n\nBut it is not only the political interests of the powers which would be\nadvanced by the neutralization of Scandinavia.\n\nIn the course of the last ten years world-wide traffic has made an\nunheard-of growth and connecting links between nations have been formed\nin many regions. As an example of the effect of these we may mention\nthat even thirty years ago the normal freightage for corn was 50-60\nshillings sterling per ton, from the Black Sea to North Europe; but\nthe freightage from California and Australia to Europe, now, hardly\nexceeds the half. A European war would exercise a paralyzing effect\nhere. Every one who has any conception of the influence of the price of\ncorn on, to speak broadly, the whole civilization of modern times, will\neasily understand this.\n\nBefore the century closes this development will have woven a net of\ncommon interest all over our continent, and necessarily called forth\nsuch a sensitiveness in the corporate body of Europe, that, for\nexample, an injury in the foot of Italy may be said to cause pain right\nup to Norway.\n\nThe merchant fleet of Norway, alone, is indeed the third in rank of all\nthe merchant fleets of the world. As is well known, the united kingdoms\ntake an advanced place in the carrying trade by sea. According to what\nwas told me by a distinguished merchant, the transport trade undertaken\nby Norwegian and Swedish ships between foreign countries is five times\ngreater than that between home and foreign lands. Consequently, as the\nkeen competition between steam and sailing vessels increases, the only\ncountry which can dispense with the service of our sailing vessels\nis England, the great power upon which we may reckon always as an\nally. Most of the remaining countries, on the other hand, require our\nmerchant fleet.\n\nSince, now, we could not of course defend our merchant service in a\nwar, and other and greater nations may be jeopardized as much as we, it\nmay be assumed that they would be willing, through the neutralization\nof Scandinavia, to secure its fleet against the eventualities of war.\n\nIf we add such interests as affect trade and credit, civilization and\nhumanity, to the political interests, it appears that we may plead on\ngrounds of strong probability that the great powers would be willing to\nguarantee our neutrality.\n\nAccording to the second objection, the country would gain no security\nfrom a guaranteed neutrality, even if, contrary to expectation, such\ncould be obtained.\n\nPerfect safety cannot be attained here on earth by any system.\nThis is as true for nations as for individuals but I believe that\na neutrality thus guaranteed would be a strong protection to our\nnational independence, whilst in a not inconsiderable degree it would\ncontribute to the preservation of peace, and gradually help to lessen\nthe military burdens of all lands; consequently, and in the first\nplace, of our own.\n\nTreaties, it is said, are broken as easily as they are made. Even if\nit be true that this has occurred, it does not necessarily follow that\nit must continue to occur. New factors may come in making it more\ndifficult to break engagements that have been entered into.\n\nExperience shows that righteous laws have been transgressed, but no\none would aver that they are therefore unnecessary. As the moral power\nof the law makes it possible to diminish the police force, so also\ntreaties of neutrality make it possible to diminish the military forces.\n\nBesides, our opponents ought to bring forward evidence that the rights\nof States at present neutralized have been violated. That they have\nbeen threatened is true, and it would have been a wonder if this had\nnot happened under the lawless condition which has obtained among\nnations.\n\nThe idea of neutrality has, nevertheless, as I have tried to show by\nmany examples, little by little developed into a valid principle of\njustice; and the growth continues. The neutralization of Scandinavia\nwould bring it a great step forward, to the blessing both of ourselves\nand of other nations.\n\nAccording to objections 3 and 4, a guaranteed neutrality would diminish\nour independence without contributing to lessen our burdens for defence.\n\nThe truth is, that international law as at present constituted does\nnot permit another power to interfere under any pretext with the\ninternal concerns of a neutral state, and therefore not with anything\nwhich affects its system of defence or its measures for preserving its\nneutrality. With these the neutral State, and it only, can deal.\n\nAs a proof of this being so, Luxemburg was neutralized in 1867 upon\ncondition that the strong fortress bearing that name should be\ndemolished. But this circumstance, imperative for the general peace\nof Europe, shows on the other hand that guaranteeing powers do not\nwillingly impose upon a State any serious duty of fortifying itself in\norder to defend its rights. Nevertheless the powers found it needful\nto make a supplementary clause to the protocol by which the congress\nconcluded the neutrality of Luxemburg, whereby it was emphasized, as a\nmatter of course, that the article respecting the destruction of the\nfortress of Luxemburg did not imply any sort of limitation of the right\nof the neutral State to maintain, or, if it chose, to improve its own\nworks of defence. Belgium did indeed construct the great fortresses\naround Antwerp long after the country was neutralized.\n\nIn reference to what one and another has said about the value of the\nsubject, nothing is needed beyond the fact that neutral rights have,\neven in its present position, been respected in all essentials. That\na neutral power must abstain from mixing itself up with the policy\nof other powers cannot imply a greater limitation of its right to\nself-regulation than that a guaranteeing power shall abstain from\nattacking a neutralized State or from making military alliance with\nit. There is certainly a limitation for both parties, as far as\nis necessary for adopting an intelligent union between States,--a\nlimitation of physical force and of love of war.\n\nThe neutral State has not to submit to any guardianship beyond what\nany man must do and does, when he subjects his passions to the control\nof a moral purpose.\n\nSeeing that a guaranteeing State has no right to interfere in our\ninternal concerns, not even in anything we think good for our defence,\nwe shall always be free to keep up a military force, large or small.\nBut a neutralized State is obliged to disarm the troops of other\nbelligerent powers that may overstep its frontiers, just as of course,\nunder the lawless condition which war is and which it entails, it has,\naccording to its ability, to protect its boundaries with arms. But if\nthis duty cannot exempt Switzerland and Belgium from proportionately\nlarge war burdens in time of peace, this would not at all in the\nsame degree affect the neutralization of the Scandinavian peninsula,\nsince there could never be a question of disarming troops which had\noverstepped its boundaries, but only of preventing the war-ships of\na belligerent power from entering Norwegian or Swedish seas, a thing\nwhich, under the protection of a guaranteed neutrality, could not take\nplace.\n\nRespecting the fifth objection, which declares that the proposition\nis untimely, I do not hesitate to express my opinion that just now,\nduring the truce which prevails, is the time to bring it forward. The\nneed of a settled peace increases everywhere, and it is therefore\nprobable that a proposition to the great powers respecting a guaranteed\nneutrality for the united kingdoms would meet with general sympathy in\nEurope.\n\nOn these and many other grounds I sought to maintain my proposition.\n\nIt was opposed by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Baron Hochschild,\namongst others, who declared that he could not possibly support it. He\ninformed us that the whole of his colleagues in the Government took\nthe same view of the subject as himself. He desired that the bill as\nwell as the contingent appointment of a committee should be thrown out\ntotally and entirely.\n\nAs the minister in this way has made the matter into a cabinet\nquestion, there could not well, under the present conditions, be any\nquestion of the adoption of the bill.\n\nIn spite of this, however, the request of the Foreign Minister was not\ncomplied with, seeing the Second Chamber adopted an amendment after\nfifty-three members had voted for the acceptance of the original bill.\n\nBy the amendment which was adopted, the Chamber did not accept the\ngrounds of the committee's opinion--which the Foreign Secretary\napproved--but, in the hope that the Government would spontaneously\ncarry out the chief object of the bill, accepted for the present the\nreport of the committee that no address be sent to the King on the\nsubject.\n\nBy reason of this result in the Second Chamber no action was taken in\nthe First on the matter.[21]\n\nDuring the debate in the Second Chamber, April 28, the Foreign\nSecretary remarked that I must have overlooked the fact that the\nEuropean powers had, ever since 1814, looked upon the two kingdoms of\nthe Scandinavian peninsula as a political unity in questions relating\nto peace and war; why otherwise should I propose from the first that\nthe sister kingdom should have the opportunity of expressing itself on\na matter which concerned Norway equally with Sweden. This objection was\nwithout foundation.\n\nDuring the drawn debate, March 3, I had already taken occasion to\npoint out that it would not be seemly for one moving a resolution in\nthe Swedish Riksdag to act as spokesman for Norway at the same time\nexpressing my confidence that the Storting would meet us in a friendly\nmanner, if the Riksdag approved the bill with respect to Sweden.[22]\n\nThat the neutralization ought to include not only Norway, but Denmark\ntoo, seems to be obvious.\n\nA highly esteemed jurist, Count L. KAMAROWSKY, professor of law at\nthe University of Moscow, puts it as a matter of great importance\nin the interests of the world's peace that international seas\nand coasts should be neutralized.[23] This particularly affects\nDenmark in connection with the other two Scandinavian States. Such\na neutralization, he says, will lead to a disarmament in the Sound\nand Belts. These great traffic-ways would then be accessible for the\nmerchant and war vessels of all nations. They must not be fortified,\nbut the freedom of navigation would be watched over by an international\ncommittee.\n\nAt the CONFERENCE at BERLIN in 1885, where fifteen States were\nrepresented, just principles were adopted for the navigation of the\nCongo and the Niger. Free navigation and commerce on these rivers was\nsecured to the flags of all nations. The same principle was likewise\nextended to their tributaries and lakes, together with canals and\nrailroads which might in the future be constructed to get past the\nunnavigable portions of the Congo and Niger. Not even in time of war\nmay the freedom of communication and commerce be interrupted. The\ntransport of contraband of war alone is forbidden. An international\ncommission takes care that all these international agreements are kept\nin force. This authority, composed of delegates from each of the States\nwhich took part in the Berlin Conference, is independent of the local\nauthorities in Congo-land.\n\nNow, every free people has naturally an independent right to arrange\nits own affairs as it chooses, upon condition that it grants the same\nright to every other State.\n\nIn consequence of this principle in international law, neutralization\nis applied in very varied ways according to the very varying conditions\nof those who have the benefit of it, and altogether in harmony with\ntheir wishes. Thus, for example, neutralization when it concerns a\nterritory, consists not only in forbidding any warlike operation in\nthe domain thus rendered inviolate, but involves a similar prohibition\nwith respect to any marching or countermarching of armies, or smaller\ndetachments, even of single officers or soldiers.\n\nA canal or a strait may be so neutralized, on the other hand, that all\nwarlike operations are forbidden in it, but nevertheless it is open for\npassage through, yet upon condition that no belligerent has a right, in\npassing through, to land upon the shores of the neutralized region.\n\nThis is the kind of neutralization which appears applicable to the\nScandinavian seas.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nOne question which for a long time came up constantly at the congresses\nof Peace Societies, was the NEUTRALIZATION of the SUEZ CANAL, until it\nbecame at last solved in practice. After tedious negotiations, this\nburning question was settled by an agreement between England and France\nin the treaty of October 24, 1887, which was later entered into by the\nother powers interested and that important channel of communication\nbecame at all times inviolate.[24]\n\nUpon the programme of the friends of peace questions have long been\nmooted respecting the neutralization of Elsass-Lothringen, and of\nthe Balkan States, together with that of the Danube, Bosphorus,\nSea of Marmora, Dardanelles, and their European coasts; whereupon\nshould follow the rendering inviolate of Constantinople; as also\nof the Baltic, and as a result of this, the neutralization of the\nScandinavian kingdoms.\n\nIn connection with the neutralization of the Sound has arisen the still\nnewer question of the non-German region north of the North Sea Canal,\nnow in course of construction, between the mouth of the Elbe and the\nnaval port of Kiel.\n\nBy constituting Elsass-Lothringen into an independent neutral State,\na division would be made between France and Germany, and these great\npowers would be separated by a huge wall of neutral States which would\nalso narrow in an essential degree the European battle-field.\n\nThe same result is hoped for from a confederacy of neutral States on\nthe Balkan, with respect to the relations between Russia and Austria,\nas well as with respect to the whole of Europe.\n\nThe Sound is one of the most important arteries of the world's\ncommerce. About one hundred vessels of all nations pass daily through\nthis strait, but only about ten (on the average, however, certainly\nlarger ships) pass through the Suez Canal, which in the interests of\nthe world's trade has become neutral.\n\nIt can be nothing but a gain to Europe that the entrances both into the\nBaltic and the Black Sea should be rendered inviolate.\n\nIn an address upon the importance of the Sound to the North, given\nto the National Economic Society, Mr. Bajer pointed out that so long\nas the Sound and its coasts were not rendered inviolate, military\ndevastations will be carried on in and around the strait by belligerent\npowers; also that the facts that the Sound is not Danish only, but\nSwedish also, and that Sweden has a common foreign policy with\nNorway, make it probable that it may the sooner be understood to be\nfor the European interest that all three northern kingdoms should be\nsimultaneously neutralized, and not one of them only.[25]\n\nIn consequence of Mr. Bajer's indefatigable zeal for the united\nco-operation of the northern kingdoms in the cause of peace, this idea\nhas gained many influential adherents in foreign countries also; and\non his proposition, two international congresses, Geneva, Sept. 16th,\n1883, and Berne, Aug. 6th, 1884, unanimously accepted the following\nresolution, which in its general meaning was adopted by the First\nNorthern peace Meeting at Gotenberg, Aug. 19th, 1885:--\n\n Considering that,--\n\n 1. The geographical position of the three northern States, is such,\n that they might, with a larger military and commercial naval power\n than they now possess, hold the keys of the Baltic:\n\n 2. Whilst the very weakness of these States probably removes all\n danger of their using the advantages of this position against Europe,\n the same weakness may one day expose them, either by force or fraud,\n to be plundered by their powerful neighbours:\n\n 3. The inviolability of the three northern States, and their\n independence of every foreign influence, is in the true interest of\n all Europe, and their neutralization would tend to the general order.\n\n 4. Their independence, which is indeed a common right of all nations,\n can only be secured to the northern nations by their neutralization.\n\n 5. This neutralization ought to have for its object and legal effect:\n\n Firstly, To place beyond all danger of war all those portions of land\n and sea which belong to Sweden, Denmark and Norway.\n\n Secondly, To secure at all times, even during war, to all merchant and\n war-ships, whatever flag they carry, whether that of a belligerent or\n not, full liberty to run into the Baltic from the North Sea, or _vice\n vers\u00e2_, whether sailing singly or in fleets.\n\n On these accounts the meeting declares,--\n\n That Denmark, Sweden and Norway ought to be neutralized, and that this\n neutralization ought to include:--\n\n 1. With respect to the mainland and islands of Norway, Sweden and\n Denmark, that all parts of this territory shall be at all times\n entirely neutral.\n\n 2. With respect to the Sound and the Little Belt, that in time of war,\n ships belonging to any belligerent power shall be forbidden to show\n themselves in these seas; which, on the other hand, shall be always\n open for merchant craft, even those belonging to belligerent powers,\n as well as for war-ships belonging to neutrals.\n\n 3. With respect to the Great Belt, that this strait shall always be\n open for merchant and war-ships of every flag, including belligerents,\n whether singly or in fleets; but that these ships shall be entirely\n forbidden to undertake any inimical action on the coasts of the\n above-named strait, or in its seas, within a distance exceeding the\n maximum range of its artillery before sailing in or sailing out, or\n indeed any attack, seizure, privateering, blockade, embargo, etc., or\n any other warlike action whatever.\n\n The meeting expressed its desire to see an international congress\n arrange and conclude a treaty which should be open for all European\n nations to enter into and sign, which should establish on the\n above-named basis, under the guarantee of the signatory powers, the\n neutrality of the northern States, together with the creation of a\n really solid tribunal of arbitration, which, as the highest court of\n appeal, should solve all difficulties that might arise with respect to\n the said treaty.\n\nThat the neutralization of the Suez Canal, so long looked upon as\na pious wish, may in the near future lead to the inviolability of\nEgypt, will doubtless be suggested. When this is accomplished, the good\nunderstanding between France and England will be further strengthened,\nand a foundation thereby laid for an extended co-operation in the\nservice of the peace of the world, in the young Congo State, with\nits twenty millions of inhabitants and a territory equal to half\nEurope; a realm founded without costing a drop of blood, from its\nfirst commencement sanctioned and declared a neutral community by the\nEuropean powers unanimously, which will some day be looked upon as one\nof the fairest pages in the history of the human race.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 14: This and the following regulations are taken from\nBluntschli's \"Das moderne V\u00f6lkerrecht der civilizirten Staatens,\"\nNordlingen, 1872. Some of the treaty provisions and questions are\ngrounded upon \"Recueil des trait\u00e9s, conventions,\" etc., par Ch. de\nMartens and F de Cussy, Leipzig, 1846, and \"Archives diplomatiques:\"\n\n--Since practical abstaining from war is the natural assumption of\nneutrality, a neutral State is bound not to assist any belligerent\npower in warlike purposes.\n\n--A neutral State may not supply a belligerent power with weapons or\nother war material.\n\n--If private persons furnish belligerent powers with war material as\narticles of commerce, they assuredly run the risk of confiscation by\nthe contending parties of such articles, as contraband of war; but the\nneutral _State_ is not to be regarded as having violated its neutrality\nby tolerating trade in contraband of war.\n\n--Permission freely to purchase food even upon account of a belligerent\npower is not regarded as a serious concession towards that State,\nprovided that the permission is general, applying alike to both parties.\n\n--A neutral State may not permit the war-ships of a belligerent power\nto run into its ports or (with any other object than to procure\nprovisions, water, coal, etc.) to traverse its sounds, rivers and\ncanals.\n\n--Belligerent powers are bound fully to respect the right of peace\nof the neutral States, and to abstain from any invasion of their\nterritories.\n\n--Where a violation of neutral territory has taken place from ignorance\nof the boundary and not from evil intent, the neutral State shall\nimmediately claim redress, compensation, and the adoption of measures\nnecessary to prevent a similar mistake in future.]\n\n[Footnote 15: See in respect of this act, \"Recueil des trait\u00e9s,\nconventions,\" etc., Ch. de Martens and F. de Cussy, Part iii. p. 243\nLeipzig, 1846.]\n\n[Footnote 16: See Ch. de Martens and F. de Cussy, in the above-named\ncollection, Part iv. p. 575.]\n\n[Footnote 17: Respecting the correspondence on this question, see the\nremainder of \"Archives diplomatiques,\" 1871-72.]\n\n[Footnote 18: Motion in the Second Chamber, No. 97.\n\nSince the European States have settled into their present grouping, the\nmaterial preponderance of the great powers over the smaller countries\nhas more and more diminished the possibility of these defending their\nexternal liberty and independence by military power only.\n\nThere are States whose whole male population cannot equal or barely\nexceed the number, which a great power can command for its fully\nequipped army.\n\nIn olden time, a small high-spirited people might with success fight\nagainst a greater and more powerful neighbour. In consequence of the\nweak organization, the feeble spirit of cohesion and the slightly\ndeveloped art of war, it was then possible.\n\nNow this condition is changed. As a rule we find that the military\nstrength of a State is in direct proportion to its population and\nmaterial wealth.\n\nThe consequence is that the smaller States have virtually ceased to\nbe belligerent powers. Such examples as Germany's proceeding against\nDenmark in 1864, and England's against Egypt in 1882, or in general,\nwhen the stronger State only needs to consider how large a portion of\nits forces must be employed to accomplish its object, are not to be\nconsidered as wars, but as military executions.\n\nAs to our own country (Sweden), it certainly has, together with Norway,\nan advantage in its situation above other small powers. But it concerns\nus that we utilize this advantage with wisdom and at the right time.\nThis is not to be done by turning Sweden into a military State, because\neven if we did so to the greatest possible extent, we should, if left\nto ourselves, not even so be in a condition to defend ourselves against\nour powerful neighbours.\n\nIn proportion as a nation exhausts its resources by military\npreparations, its ability lessens to cope with an over-powering enemy.\n\nIn our day, not only are great and well-disciplined hosts required for\ncarrying on war, but great material riches are equally indispensable.\nThe relation between a nation of four or five millions, and one of\nforty or fifty millions, is like that between the dwarfs and the giants.\n\nIt is easily understood that patriotic feelings may bewilder the\njudgment, and that our nation, with its brilliant war memories, can\nonly with difficulty perceive this simple truth, and with reluctance\naccommodate itself to the changed condition which modern times have\ncreated.\n\nLet us, however, realize that we are standing at the parting of the\nways; that we have before us the alternative, on the one hand, of a\nbarren and ruinous militarism; on the other, the seeking of our defence\nin a neutrality guaranteed by the united powers; making it possible for\nus to get our defence adjusted, without any very great difficulty, and\nsettled upon a footing so satisfactory.\n\nThe first-named alternative would, in our naturally poor land,\nexcessively depress our natural vitality, and in a great degree prevent\nour progress as a cultured people keeping pace with greater and\nwealthier nations. The second would put us into a position to confine\nour military burdens within reasonable limits, and to expend the powers\nand resources of prosperity thus relieved, in means of promoting\nbusiness, trade, science, and well-being of all kinds.\n\nThe clear-sighted friend of his country, who sees the population in\never-swelling numbers leaving their homes for a foreign shore, seeking\na new fatherland, will surely not hesitate in his choice.\n\nIt will perhaps be said that such a choice does not now lie before us.\nThere are two opinions about that. But in one thing we may all unite,\nnamely, that a settled neutrality for Sweden is a thing to be aimed at.\nHere almost every interest of the fatherland converges.\n\nBut if such a neutralization is considered by many not a sufficient\npeace-protection under all circumstances, yet no one with reason can\ndeny that it does form a security for our country against foreign\npowers.\n\nAccepting this conclusion as correct, it follows that we should find\nsome practicable means of realizing it; and if hindrances do meet us,\nwe shall, on nearer inspection, find that they are not great, but with\nhearty goodwill and perseverance may be overcome.\n\nThis is my conviction.\n\nIn drawing attention to the subjoined, I would further bring to mind\nthat the seat of war in Europe is limited in the proportion in which\nthe number of neutralized States grows, a condition of things which may\nlittle by little in an essential degree impede or prevent the outbreak\nof war; that the peculiar situation of Sweden (greatly superior, for\nexample, to Belgium or Switzerland) must naturally facilitate its\nneutralization; that, lastly, the neutrality proposed does not stand\nin the way of arranging our own defence, but that rather, in case\nParliament rejects his Majesty's army bill, adapts itself powerfully to\ncontribute to a right solution of the _Defence question_; and so much\nthe more, as all suspicion that that old vexed question aims perhaps\nat something more and other than DEFENCE of the country would thereby\ndisappear.\n\nFor this reason--and since we cannot expect that other powers should\ntake the first step and offer us what we do not ask for--I respectfully\npropose:--\n\n _That Parliament shall in writing express to the king its desire that\n it might please his Majesty to initiate, amongst the states with which\n Sweden has diplomatic relations, negotiations for bringing about a\n permanent guaranteed[26] neutrality of Sweden, in harmony with the\n principles of modern international law._\n\n  K.P. ARNOLDSON.\n\n STOCKHOLM, _February, 1883_.\n\nThis motion was supported by--\n\n  S.A. HEDLUND,\n  WILL. FARUP,\n  J. ANDERSSON, Tenhuset,\n  J.E. ERICSSON, Alberta,\n  PER PERSSON,\n  F.F. BORG,\n  J. JONASSEN, Gullahs,\n  C.J. SVEN'S,\n  A. TH. WAYLEN'S,\n  P.M. LARSON, LA,\n  P.G. PETERSON,\n  ARVID GUMOELIUS,\n  J. JONASSEN,\n  ERIC OLSSON,\n  J.A. ERICSSON,\n  LARS NILSSON,\n  C.G. OTTERBORG.]\n\n\n[Footnote 19: Taken from the following communication:\n\nAt a meeting, March 31st, 1883, of the Association of members of the\nStorting, a document was presented, being a motion in the Second\nChamber, No. 97, respecting the Neutralization of Sweden; which\ndocument was sent to the president of the meeting by a Swedish M.P.\n\nIn consequence of this the following declaration and resolution was\nvoted unanimously: Recognising that the neutralization of a single\ncountry is in the interest of universal peace; that being secured\nfrom foreign attack by stronger nations, gives ability to use its\nown resources and develop its institutions, including its defence,\naccording to its special requirements; that the condition and situation\nof our country give equal opportunity for working for this object,\nand facilities for its attainment; and that the action taken in the\nSwedish Rigsdag upon the question, seriously calls our attention to it\non the ground of the constitutional relation between the kingdoms and\ntheir union in war and in peace; a committee is requested to take into\nconsideration, how the question may be subjected to further attention.\n\n  A. QUAM, Secretary of the Association.]\n\n[Footnote 20: Protocol of the Second Chamber, No 33, April 28th, 1883.]\n\n[Footnote 21: See on the dealing with the question in Parliament,\n\"Riksdagstrycket\" 1883. Motion in the Second Chamber, No. 97, pp. 1-8;\nFirst Chamber, protocol No. 33, pp. 3-4, etc., etc.]\n\n[Footnote 22: Mr. Arnoldson's speech ran thus:--\n\n\"The second speaker on the Right propounded certain difficulties,\namongst others, one referring to Sweden's union with Norway. Since\nSweden and Norway have the same foreign policy, and the initiative\nin this question comes from Sweden, the Union King ought certainly\nto be able to act freely in the common interest of the two kingdoms.\nIn any case, it is probable, as Mr. Hedlund remarked, that if the\nRiksdag takes the first step it will not be long before the Storting\ncomes to meet us. It was chiefly on the ground of courtesy that I did\nnot undertake to speak for Norway too in the Riksdag. We know that\nthe Norse--and it does them honour--are tenacious of their right of\ndeciding for themselves. I do not think it would be seemly for the\nmover of such a resolution as this to make himself their spokesman\nin the Swedish Riksdag--not to mention the positive incorrectness\nof the proceeding. This is why I limited the matter to Sweden in my\nproposition.\"]\n\n[Footnote 23: \"Revue de droit international et de Legislation\ncompar\u00e9e,\" 1888, 2.]\n\n[Footnote 24: The most important provisions of the treaty are the\nfollowing:--\n\nArticle 1. The Suez Canal shall always be free and open whether in time\nof war or peace, for both merchant and war-ships, whatever flag they\ncarry. The treaty-powers therefore decide that the use of this canal\nshall not be limited either in time of peace or war. The canal can\nnever be blockaded.\n\nArticle 4. No fortifications which can be used for military operations\nagainst the Suez Canal, may be erected at any point which would command\nor menace it. No points which command or menace its entrance or course\nmay be occupied in a military sense.\n\nArticle 5 provides that, although the Suez Canal shall be open in\nwar-time, no belligerent action shall take place in its vicinity or\nin its harbours, or within a distance from its area which shall be\ndetermined by the international committee that watches over the canal.\n\nArticle 6 is a continuation of the foregoing and runs thus: In time of\nwar none of the belligerent powers are permitted to land, or to take on\nboard, ammunition or other war material, either in the canal or in its\nharbours.\n\nArticle 8. The powers are not allowed to keep any warship in the waters\nof the canal. But they may lay up war-ships in the harbours of Port\nSaid and Suez to a number not exceeding two of any nation.\n\nArticle 9. The representatives in Egypt of the powers who signed the\ntreaty shall be charged with seeing to its fulfilment. In all cases\nwhere free passage through the canal may be menaced, they shall meet\nupon the summons of the senior member to investigate the facts. They\nshall acquaint the Khedive's Government with the danger anticipated,\nthat it may take the measures needful to secure the safety and\nunimpeded use of the canal. They shall meet regularly once a year\nto ascertain that the treaty is properly observed. They shall most\nespecially require the deposition of all works and dispersion of all\ncollections of troops which on any part of the area of the canal might\neither design or cause a menace to the free passage or to the security\nthereof.\n\nArticle 10 treats of the obligations of the Egyptian Government and\nruns thus:--\n\nThe Egyptian Government shall, so far as its power by firman goes, take\nthe measures necessary for enforcing the treaty. In case the Egyptian\nGovernment has not adequate means it shall apply to the Sublime Porte,\nwhich will then consult with the other signatories of the London\ntreaty of March 17, and with them make provision in response to that\napplication.\n\nArticle 14 sets forth: Beyond the duties expressed and stipulated for\nin the paragraphs of this treaty, the sovereign rights of his Imperial\nMajesty the Sultan are in no way curtailed, nor are the privileges and\nrights of his Highness the Khedive as defined by the firman.]\n\n[Footnote 25: Nationaloekonomisk Tidsskrift, xxii. pp. 139-155. See\nalso _Politiken_, 1890, March 31. Article \"Oeresunds Fred,\" signed,\nDefensor Patri\u00e6.]\n\n[Footnote 26: The word \"guaranteed\" was inserted in the motion contrary\nto the opinion of the committee]\n\n\n\n\nFURTHER DEVELOPMENTS.\n\n\nIn other ways the European powers have shown that, with a little\nwillingness to do so, they can work together in the interests of peace.\n\nWe have an illustrative instance of this in the DANUBE COMMISSION,\nwhich, since 1856, has watched over the traffic in the Delta of the\nDanube, neutralized by the Treaty of Paris.\n\nThis commission, which is composed of members from all the great powers\nand Turkey and Roumania, and was originally appointed only for a short\ntime, has, in consideration of its great value as an international\ninstitution, been renewed from year to year, and has had its power\ngradually extended. The commission possesses its own flag, its customs\nand pilotage, its police, its little fleet, and so on. It has for\nthirty years exercised an almost unlimited power over the mouths of the\nDanube, has made laws, raised a loan, carried out works, and in many\nother respects given evidence of the possibility of united co-operation\namongst the powers under many changing and intricate international\nrelations.\n\nIn the so-called EUROPEAN CONCERT is seen a commencement of an extended\nco-operation in a similar direction. The war between Servia and\nBulgaria was confined within certain limits by the united will of the\npowers, and Greece was obliged to subdue her fierce military ardour.\n\nAgain, so far as concerns such coalitions as it is evident are not\nformed for the whole of Europe, but are said to aim at securing peace\nby accumulating forces, it could hardly be expected, from their very\nnature, that they would fulfil the alleged design in themselves.\nBut, on the other side, it would be short-sighted to overlook their\nimportance as a link in the gradually progressive development of the\ninterests of various nations in the common concerns of Europe. One\ntoken in this direction is the proposal which was brought forward\nin the beginning of 1888 by a number of deputies in the Austrian\nParliament, urging the Government, after procuring the consent of\nthe Hungarian Government, to initiate negotiations with Germany for\nthe purpose of getting a GERMANO-AUSTRIAN ALLIANCE adopted by the\nParliaments of both realms, and constitutionally incorporated in the\nfundamental law of both States. This proposal may have hardly any\npractical result, but it is worth notice as one of the small rays of\nlight which from time to time point the way to a common goal.\n\nThither point too, though indeed from afar, those propositions for\nDISARMAMENT which now and then crop up, but which, quite naturally,\nfade away as quickly as they come, so long as the principle of\narbitration does not prevail in Europe.\n\n\"Europe's only salvation is a general disarmament,\" cries the\nillustrious Frenchman Jules Simon, and yet louder the Italian\nex-minister, Bonghi. The latter a distinguished Conservative statesman,\nutters these powerful words in the _International Review_ (Rome).\n\n \"The ideas of peace, which I have just expressed and which are also\n entertained by the masses, sound almost like a jest in the menaces of\n war which we hear around us. And they are ridiculous if the policy\n which the Government follows is considered serious. The great thing\n is to be able to guess how long the ludicrous shall be regarded as\n serious, and the serious as ludicrous; and how long a proceeding so\n devoid of sound reason as that of the great European powers will be\n counted as sense. I, for my part, am persuaded that such a confusion\n as to the meaning of the words cannot endure continually, and that the\n present condition of things, whether people will or not, must soon\n cease. But we ought not to wait until the change is brought about by\n violence, nor indeed till it comes by violence from--below. Dynasties\n must give heed to this, and must hold me responsible for saying it--I,\n who am a royalist by conviction.\"\n\nIn the English House of Commons, Mr. A. Illingworth, May 30th, 1889,\nquestioned the First Lord of the Treasury, Mr. W.H. Smith, \"Whether the\nGovernment had recently made a proposal to the continental Governments\nthat they should agree upon a considerable and early reduction of\narmaments? and with what result? And if not, whether Her Majesty's\nGovernment would without delay initiate such negotiations, having for\ntheir object to lessen the military burdens and the dangers which\nmenace the peace of Europe.\"\n\nIn his answer the First Lord of the Treasury[27] said: \"If any\nfavourable opportunity manifested itself, the Government would have\npleasure in using its influence in the direction indicated by the\nhonourable member. But the questioner should bear in mind, that an\ninterference in a question of this sort often does more harm than good\nto the object he wishes to attain. I can assure him that the Government\nis as deeply impressed with this question as himself, and it has often\nexpressed its view in the House, that the present armed condition of\nEurope is a great misfortune and a danger to the peace of the world.\"\n\nIn the German Parliament, also, similar utterances may be heard; in\nthe latest instance from one of the Centre, Reichensperger, who in the\nmilitary debate, June 28th, 1890, expressed the wish that they could\nset in motion a general disarmament. The speaker had certainly spoken\nin favour of the Government bill for adding 18,000 men to the peace\nfooting of the army. But he wished alongside of that to say, that as\nthe decision of the Emperor in summoning a conference of working men\nfrom all parts of Europe had been greeted with applause, so would the\ncivilized world, with still greater applause greet the tidings that\nWilliam II. had advocated a general disarmament.\n\n       *      *       *       *       *\n\nMany entertain the belief that the first condition of such a\ndisarmament must be to absolve the rulers themselves from the dangerous\npower they possess in being able at their discretion to declare war,\nconclude peace, and make alliances one with another for warlike aims.\n\nIn our country many propositions have been brought forward for limiting\nthis power especially with regard to the concluding of treaties without\nso much as consulting the whole Swedish Cabinet.\n\nAs is well known, even in the time of Gustavus Adolphus, the royal\npower did not extend beyond the king having to consult the Riksdag, and\nto obtain its consent, whether he were engaging in a war or entering\ninto an alliance with foreign powers. The absolute monarchs seized\nupon greater power, and the law-makers of 1809 simply ratified this\ndangerous extension of it.\n\nNow we are unceasingly told, when the subject of defence is on, about\nsacrifices. They declare to us that no sacrifice should be esteemed too\ngreat. The State has the right of enlisting soldiers by compulsion,\nfathers, husbands and sons, for the defence of the country; and not\nonly when it is really a question of defence, but when it is a matter\nof preparation for defence, that is drill, even if this extend to years\nof barrack life in time of peace.\n\nThese are the sacrifices demanded from the people.\n\nThere are those who think, would it not be much better if the people,\non their side, demanded a little security that the country should not\nbe far too thoughtlessly plunged into war--war which can no longer be\ncarried on by paid volunteers, but with members of families conscripted\nby force, by means of compulsory service?\n\nSuch security could be effected by changing the formulas of government\n\u00a7\u00a7 12 and 13, and the constitutional law \u00a7 26, partly so that the\nconclusion of treaties should require the confirmation of a united\nmeeting of the Swedo-Norse cabinet councils, and partly also,\nthat certain treaties, namely such as include a greater political\nintricacy, should be subjected to the confirmation of the Riksdag\nand the Storting, as has been the case with certain treaties of\ncommerce--bagatelles in comparison with the entanglement of the\nkingdoms in war.\n\nIt is simply an assertion, refuted by experience, that the king cannot\nmake use of the law here treated of.\n\nDuring the Crimean war, according to a treaty, we should have been\nentangled in the war, had not the Peace of Paris intervened. So also\nduring the last Dano-German war, when interference on our part, as the\nresult of a treaty, would have taken place, had not the death of King\nFrederic VII. occurred.\n\nThe same thing would have happened during the last Franco-German war,\nif the battle of W\u00f6rth had not thrown out the reckoning, according to\na treaty which entailed our interference. Into all these treaties the\nking could enter without giving the whole Cabinet the opportunity of\nexpressing its opinion.\n\nThe danger of such a power begins to be increasingly felt, especially\nin England. In 1886, Henry Richard raised in the House of Commons\nthe question of abolishing the right of the sovereign to declare war\nwithout the consent of Parliament. The proposition was certainly\nrejected, but with the large minority of 109 against 115 votes. That\nthe proposition could gather round it such a minority may certainly\nbe regarded as a remarkable sign of the times. In 1889, W.R. Cremer\nmade a similar motion in the House. He proposed that a \"parliamentary\ncommittee should be chosen to examine and arrange foreign matters,\nwhich were then to be laid before Parliament.\" This proposal fell\nthrough but progress was made, and Mr. Cremer still awaits a suitable\noccasion for renewing it.\n\nA characteristic expedient is pointed out by the well-known Belgian\nprofessor of political economy, de Molinari, in an article published in\nthe _Times_.\n\nHe shows, in the first place, how solidarity among the civilized States\nof the world has lately increased in a marvellous degree, for not long\nago the foreign trade of a civilized nation and the capital invested in\nother States was of very small importance. Each country produced nearly\nall the requisites for its own consumption, and employed its capital\nin its own undertakings. In 1613, the whole of England's imports and\nexports amounted to only five million pounds sterling. A hundred years\nlater, indeed, the united foreign trade of the whole of Europe did not\namount to so much as the present foreign trade of little Belgium.\nStill more unimportant were the foreign loans. Holland was the only\ncountry whose capitalists lent to foreign Governments, and persons were\nhardly to be found who ventured to put their money into industrial\nundertakings in foreign lands, or even beyond the provinces in which\nthey dwelt. Consequently at that time a neutral State suffered little\nor no injury when two States were at war. A quarrel between France and\nSpain or Germany then did no more harm to English interests than a war\nbetween China and Japan would do now.\n\nAt present it is quite otherwise. Trade and capital have in our day\nbecome international. While the foreign traffic of the civilized world\ntwo hundred years ago did not exceed one hundred millions sterling, it\nruns up now to about five thousand millions; and foreign loans have\naugmented in the same degree. In every country there is a constantly\nincreasing portion of the population dependent for its subsistence upon\nrelations with other peoples, either for the manufacture or exportation\nof goods, or for the importation of foreign necessaries. In France a\ntenth part of the population is dependent in this way upon foreign\ncountries, a third in Belgium, and in England probably not far from a\nthird.\n\nSo long as there is peace, this increasing community of interests is a\nsource of well-being, and advances civilization; but if a war breaks\nout, that which was a blessing is turned into a common ill. For, not\nto mention the burden which preparations for defence impose upon the\nneutral nations, they suffer from the crisis which war causes in the\nmoney market, and from the cessation or curtailing of their trade with\nthe belligerent powers.\n\nFrom these facts, de Molinari deduces a principle of justice--NEUTRAL\nSTATES HAVE THE RIGHT TO FORBID A WAR, as it greatly injures their own\nlawful interests.\n\nIf two duellists fight out their quarrel in a solitary place, where\nnobody can be injured by their balls or swords, they may be allowed\nwithout any great harm to exercise their right of killing. But if they\nset to work to shoot one another in a crowded street, no one can blame\nthe police if they interfere, since their action exposes peacable\npassers-by to danger. It is the same with war between States. Neutral\nStates would have small interest in hindering war, if war did not do\nthem any particular harm; and under those circumstances their right\nto interfere might be disputed. But when, as is now the case, war\ncannot be carried on without menacing a great and constantly increasing\nportion of the interests of neutrals, yes, even their existence, their\nright to come in and maintain order is indisputable.\n\nThe worst is that, after all, the belligerent nation itself never\ndecides its own fate. That is settled by a few politicians and military\nmen, who have quite other interests than those of business. It is\noften done by a single man; and it may be said without exaggeration,\nthat the world's peace depends upon the pleasure of three or four men,\nsovereigns or ministers, who can any day, at their discretion, let\nslip all the horrors of war. They can thereby bring measureless misery\nand ills upon the whole civilized world's peaceable industries, not\nexcepting even those of neutral nations, with whom they have nothing to\ndo. The most absolute despots of the rude old times had no such power.\n\nSelf-interests of purely political nature give the neutral States,\nespecially the smaller ones, the right to do what they can to prevent\nwar between other powers; because it is an old experience that war\namong the great powers readily spreads itself to the little ones.\n\nDe Molinari states further that the neutral States may so much the more\neasily ward off all this evil, as they have not only the right, but\nalso the power, if they would set themselves to do it.\n\nThereupon he unfolds his proposition:--\n\n\"With England at the head, and with Holland, Belgium, Switzerland\nand Denmark as members, there might be formed a confederation, 'THE\nNEUTRAL LEAGUE,' for the purpose of attacking any of the other powers\nwho should begin a war, and of helping the attacked. The States named\nhave a united strength of 460,000 men, and can place on a war footing\n1,200,000. To these may be added the fleets of England, Holland\nand Denmark, which together form the strongest naval power in the\nworld.\"[28]\n\nSuppose that a complication takes place between two great powers on the\ncontinent of Europe--Germany, France, Austria, or Russia--there can be\nno doubt that if the \"League\" united its strength with the threatened\npower, that power would become thereby so superior to its opponent that\nvictory would be certain.\n\nFor this reason a peaceable interference on the part of the League\nbefore the war broke out, would make the most warlike amongst the\npowers consider.\n\nBut the fact that no State could stir up a war without meeting a\ncrushing superior force would lead to a constant and lasting state of\npeace, and disarmament.\n\nDe Molinari thinks his plan would be advanced by forming an association\nin the countries named, which should work for an agreement between them\nin the above-named direction.\n\nThe proposition will never of itself lead to any practical result. But\nit is at least useful in having pointed out the growing interest which\nneutral powers have in maintaining peace unmolested. This interest\nshows itself already in general politics in the zealous pains with\nwhich, on the outbreak of war, all powers not implicated unite to\n\"localize\" war, that is, to limit it to as few partisans, and to as,\nsmall an area, as possible. The peace interests of neutral States\nbecome year by year more powerful factors in politics.\n\nHere we must bear in mind that more States are continually passing over\ninto the condition of unconsciously forming \"a neutral league.\" They\nare approaching the goal which they have long been striving after by\narms and by diplomacy. \"They are,\" to quote Bismarck, \"satisfied and\ndo not strive for more.\" Such States are Germany and Italy, which have\nachieved their unity, and Hungary, which has gained its freedom.\n\nNevertheless all great causes of war are not thereby eradicated from\nEurope.\n\nIn the forenamed article by the Russian jurist, Kamarowski, light is\nthrown upon this circumstance with scientific clearness.\n\nHe says respecting Germany, that this country has essentially realized\nits national unity, and thereby reached a justifiable object; but\nat the same time has been guilty of two serious violations of the\nprinciples of international right.\n\n\"It carried on the war against France with an inflexible and altogether\nunnecessary severity, and it tore from that State Elsass-Lothringen.\"\n\nThe attempt is certainly made to justify this by the fact that both\nthese provinces formerly belonged to Germany, and that it was an\nabsolute necessity for Germany to acquire a military guarantee against\na fresh attack on the part of France.\n\nKamarowski shows both these grounds to be untenable. If nations\nshould continually look back to the past, and strive to renew the old\nconditions, they never could found a more durable or righteous state of\nthings in the present.\n\nWhat ought to be decisive is, that in these unhappy provinces the\nsympathy of the great part of the population is completely on the side\nof France.\n\nThe possession of Strasburg and Metz has not only failed to give\nGermany the anticipated security; it has, on the other hand, compelled\nthe Germans to live since 1871 in perpetual unrest; to keep on foot\nan immense army, and to expend their last resources in building\nfortresses. Besides, this possession cripples German activity in\nboth internal and external political questions. The situation of\nFrance is equally unenviable; constantly kept in suspense, and with\nthe feeling of having been unjustly treated, and longing for revenge.\nIs it possible, with this deadly hatred between two of Europe's most\ncivilized states, to think of a lasting peace?\n\nAnd what can the Governments of these nations do with respect to this\nevil, unless they set themselves to eradicate it?\n\nKamarowski proposes three different solutions of the question of\nElsass-Lothringen. A European congress might arrange the destiny of\nthese provinces, by dividing them, for example, so that Elsass should\nremain united to Germany, and Lothringen to France; or by forming them\ninto two or more cantons united to Switzerland; or lastly, by letting\nthem become an independent State with a self-chosen mode of government,\nbut with the _sine qu\u00e2 non_ that they shall be neutralized, and placed\nunder the guarantee of combined Europe.\n\nIt would be almost immaterial to Europe which of these three expedients\nwere chosen; therefore the choice might be left to the inhabitants of\nElsass-Lothringen themselves; and the opportunity might be given them\nof expressing themselves by a plebiscite, uncontrolled by any influence\nfrom either the French or German side.\n\nThis naturally affects Danish South Jutland in an equal degree, which\nGermany wrenched from Denmark by a gross breach of international law.\nThat the writer does not adduce this instance may be simply because he\ndoes not regard it as involving any danger of war.\n\nKamarowski finds this to be much more pronounced with regard to the\nEASTERN QUESTION.\n\nThis is more threatening than that of Elsass-Lothringen. Ever since\nthe close of the last century the Turkish Empire has, on account of\nits internal condition, been doomed to fall to pieces, and its final\ndissolution is only a question of time. It is difficult to say what is\nto be done with the remains.\n\nThe only reasonable and righteous settlement is to allow the Christian\npeoples who were in the past subjected by the Turks, and who compose\nthe great majority of the population in European Turkey, to form\nindependent States. Manifold causes have hitherto prevented the\norganization of the political life of these nations, shorn of political\nmaturity in consequence of protracted thraldom, mutual jealousy,\nand influences of the great powers, who under all manner of excuses\nhave played their own game at the cost of these people, pretending\nto protect them, while they sought to make them into their subjects.\nRussia has doubtless, even if unintentionally, in the greatest degree\nhelped to set these nations free, and to produce the present position\nby which Servia and Roumania have been changed, from being subject\nto Turkey, into independent States; and Bulgaria, instead of being a\nTurkish province, has now a less subject position as regards Turkey.\n\"It is,\" says the writer, \"not altogether without reason that the\nRussians accuse their Southern Sclav brethren of ingratitude\"; but\nhe admits that Russia ought partly to blame herself. She has, for\ninstance, at times shown a decided inclination to force her forms of\nthought and policy upon them, and to get the whole of their inner\nnational life placed under her authority. This action of Russia is\nblameworthy, both because it violates the independence which belongs\nof right to every State, and because it is foolishly opposed to\nRussia's own well-known interests. By such a policy she can only betray\nher Sclav mission, create more than one new Poland for herself, and\nartificially shift her political power from north to south, thereby\nweakening her national strength.\n\nKamarowski further describes the selfish schemes of England and Austria\nin the Balkan peninsula.\n\nThese plans are even more distasteful to the Christian population than\nRussia's, because it stands in the closest relation to that country\nboth as to race and a common religion. England and Austria seek to\nentice this people by the prospect of freer institutions and greater\neconomic well-being but they can only drag them into their net at the\ncost of their national and moral independence. And the jealousy between\nthese powers, Russia on the one hand and Austria and England on the\nother, each wanting to get the advantage, or to possess itself of\nthe remains of the dying realm, is a standing menace to the peace of\nEurope. This danger would disappear if people could be satisfied to let\nthese nations belong to themselves.\n\nNow that Austria has carried out the injunction laid upon her by the\nBerlin Congress--for the present to undertake the management and\nadministration of Bosnia and Herzegovina--she ought to withdraw from\nthese provinces, whose population should be allowed to decide their own\nfate by universal suffrage, whether this would result in the union of\nBosnia with Servia, and of Herzegovina with Montenegro, or whether the\nsituation should be arranged in some other way. All that Austria has\nany ground for requiring is, the free navigation of the Danube and the\nstraits (Bosphorus and Dardanelles), and therewith her true interests\nin this region would be abundantly satisfied.\n\nThe Christian States which, alongside of Turkey, have spread over\nthe Balkan peninsula, are Greece, Roumania, Servia, Montenegro and\nBulgaria. The last named still stands in subjection to Turkey, but has\nthe same right to full independence as the neighbour States. It is\nevidently their vocation to divide amongst themselves the remains of\nTurkey in Europe, for their population in an overwhelming proportion\nconsists of Southern Sclavs and Greeks. But unhappily they seem to\nhave little conception of this their task, because they live in a\nconstant state of jealousy and bickering. These States are all only\njust in the embryo. They have not yet by a long way attained their\nnatural boundaries. A large number of Greeks and Bulgarians are still\nunder the direct government of Turkey. It would be labour lost to\nattempt to guess how many small States will form themselves out of the\nruins of Turkey, or what political form they will take. The author\nremarks that it would be best for them to arrange themselves into one\nor more confederations with self-government for each single State\ncomposing this alliance.\n\nEurope, in harmony with international justice, should see to it: (1)\nthat the peoples of the Balkan peninsula should not become the prey\nof any foreign power; (2) that they should not be allowed to trespass\nupon each other's domains; (3) that their development should as far\nas possible proceed in a peaceful and law-abiding way; (4) that they\nshould divide the inheritance of Turkey in a thoroughly just manner, so\nthat the political boundaries should be marked out in harmony with the\nwishes and interests of the inhabitants; (5) that they themselves do\nnot invade the domains of other States, and that they recognise all the\nmaxims of international justice.\n\nA European congress, co-operating in such an arrangement of the\nconditions of the Balkan peninsula, would contribute in no small\ndegree to remove the causes of war in Europe, and would do effective\nwork in the cause of freedom and civilization. Greece would acquire\nall the islands of the Archipelago, together with Candia and Cyprus.\nMacedonia would, according to the conditions of its nationalities,\nbe divided between Greece and Bulgaria. The natural boundary of the\nlatter would be the Danube on the one side and the Archipelago on the\nother. Constantinople would remain the capital of a Bulgarian kingdom,\nor of a Southern Sclav federation; or again, a free city with a small\nindependent territory.[29] The fortifications on both sides the\nBosphorus and Dardanelles should be destroyed, and both these straits\nbe thrown open to the navigation of all nations.\n\nAfter being obliterated from the list of European nations, Turkey would\npeacefully continue its existence in Asia.\n\nBut not even so are all the causes of war removed from our continent.\nMany are to be found in the RELATIONS BETWEEN RUSSIA AND ENGLAND\nespecially two, says Kamarowski.\n\nOne is the opposition between the dissimilar forms of government in\nthese countries. England is the advocate of liberal social institutions\nall over the continent, but Russia poses as the mainstay of unlimited\nsovereign power and of conservative principles. Yet doubtless Russia\nwill sooner or later, with a firmness and consistency hitherto lacking,\nstrike into the path of political reform, and then this contrast will\nbe assimilated.\n\nThe other consists in the opposing interests of the two powers upon\nthe Eastern Question. But if this question is solved as the author\nproposes, by the whole Balkan peninsula being permitted to form itself\ninto independent States under the guarantee of united Europe, this\ncause of strife would also be removed. Russia need no longer threaten\nIndia. Russia's true well-being can never consist in spreading herself\nover the deserts and wastes of Asia, or in the endless compulsory\nsubjection of hostile races under her. She will doubtless in time\nperceive this.\n\nHistorical facts have already marked out the domain of both realms and\nthe boundaries of their influence. The greater part of Southern Asia is\nmore or less subjected to England. The whole of Northern and Central\nAsia belongs to Russia. Russia and England have a common mission in\nAsia--to promote the Christian civilization of the world; and in this\ndirection each has her special call.\n\nAlso in the relations between RUSSIA AND GERMANY are found indeed\ninflammable materials; but with wise action on both sides they may be\ngot rid of.\n\nRussia has, more than any other power, promoted the unity and powerful\nposition of Germany. Except during the strife between the Empress\nElizabeth and Frederic II., constant friendly relations have obtained\nbetween Russia and Prussia; so, under Frederick II. and Catherine II.,\nand during Prussia's struggle against Napoleon I. while the friendship\nbetween Alexander II. and William I. made possible the wars of 1866 and\n1870-71. The House of Hohenzollern, which has never been any friend of\npopular freedom, felt drawn to Russia upon the ground of its devotion\nto conservative modes of thought and its absolutism.\n\nBut since Prussia has realized her goal--that of being the leading\npower in Germany--the relations with Russia have become more and more\nstrained.\n\nOne of the chief causes has been the disputes caused by economic\nquestions, and that of the customs in particular.\n\nIn addition to this is the general misunderstanding fomented by the\npress. The political press, says Kamarowski, ought to serve the cause\nof peace to-day more than ever. Unhappily it by no means does. With\nfew exceptions it helps to fan and feed national hatred, and to stir\nup enmity between the European States. Most of the principal organs\nhave a narrower horizon than this. Some of these papers and periodicals\nare worked only as business undertakings, to make the greatest\npossible profit to the shareholders; the best of them defend with\ngross one-sidedness the interests of their own country; seldom do they\ndisclose any insight into great, purely humanitarian interests. The\npolitical press is, therefore, for the most part a constant source of\nreciprocal suspicion and hatred, which hinders the States of Europe\nfrom entering into the condition of peace they all inwardly so long\nfor. Dip at random into a heap of most of the great papers, and you\nwill find the strangest ideas respecting international justice; rank\nself-assertion in judgment, and purely barbarous sentiments respecting\nsubjugating and destroying so-called hereditary enemies.\n\nLastly, there is a cause of tension between Russia and Germany in\ntheir opposing attitude with regard to the Sclav question; and if a\nsatisfactory solution is not found for this question in a peaceable\nway, a crowd of complications will arise, into which Russia will\ninevitably be drawn.\n\nWe have first the Polish question. In our day Russia is entering,\nthrough the power of circumstances, more and more into her historic\nvocation of giving freedom and unity to the Sclavs. But this\nundertaking stands in direct opposition to the policy which was\nexpressed in the partition of Poland.\n\nRussia's future _r\u00f4le_ may be to favour a confederation of all the\nSclav peoples. Her true mission cannot be to subdue or trample down any\nSclav nationality, but much rather to emancipate them all. Emancipate\nfrom what? From the yoke of Turkey and of Germany. So far as the former\nis concerned, a great part of the work has been already carried out.\nWith regard to the Germans, Russia cannot think of the restoration of\nthe disputed and long obliterated boundaries of the Sclav races, which\nwere lost in the struggle with the Germans; but she may assist the\norganization of the bodies politic of the Sclav races, and co-operate\nin revivifying those branches of the nation which are not altogether\ndead.\n\nThe author desires, therefore, that Poland should be restored by\nRussia's own act. Yet Poland must not demand her boundaries as they\nwere before 1772 (that is, the possession of Lithuania). Once admitted\ninto a Sclav confederation, she would cease to be a menace to any one,\nbut would serve as a bulwark between Russia and Germany.\n\nThe solution of the Sclav question might, according to the author's\nidea, bring with it the dismemberment of the Austrian Empire. The\nGerman part would go to Germany, and Trieste and South Tyrol fall to\nItaly. Austria's Sclav provinces would be acknowledged as independent,\nand either unite themselves with the Sclav federation on the Balkan\npeninsula, or form a separate State. The situation in Bohemia would be\nthe most difficult to arrange, since in part it is a German-speaking\ncountry; but as a Sclav land, it ought under no circumstances to be\nentirely given over to the Germans. Hungary also would obtain its\nindependence, but must, on its own part, recognise the freedom of\nCroatia. The inhabitants of the various portions of the Austrian Empire\nwould themselves have to decide their fate, and in the interests of\nall, a European congress should be summoned, to maintain the general\npeace, and to prevent one nationality from subjecting or swallowing up\nanother.\n\nBut while Professor Kamarowski here and elsewhere in his treatise\nspeaks of congresses, he does not mean thereby the meetings of\ndiplomatists to which that name now applies.\n\nCongresses ought, he says, to be actual international organs, whose\nobject is not to serve the fluctuating and conflicting interests of\npolicy, but the strict principles of justice. They must be permanent\ninstitutions, and being so, help on international reforms, such as\na gradual disarmament and a codification of international law; that\nis, a correct digest of the various regulations and principles of\ninternational law, forming a common law for all civilized nations.\n\nIn the last named direction there is in the field already THE\nASSOCIATION FOR THE REFORM AND CODIFICATION OF INTERNATIONAL\nLAW, founded at Brussels, Oct. 10th, 1873, and in an important\ndegree consisting of the most eminent jurists of the nations. This\nassociation, which meets annually for the discussion of international\nlaw in various parts of Europe, deals also with the scholarly inquiry\ninto the continually growing material, springing from the many\ninternational congresses, which so often now, with various objects,\nmeet first in one part then in another of the civilized world. As\nexamples of some of the most recent of these may be named: The post and\ntelegraph conferences; the conference on maritime law in Washington,\nrepresenting twenty-one separate States, with the purpose of working\nout a universal system of signals for preventing collisions; the\nAfrican conference at Brussels, with representatives of most of the\nEuropean powers for considering the best way of civilizing Africa,\ngetting rid of the slave trade, and limiting the exportation of\nalcohol;[30] the railway meeting at Lugano, for introducing a uniform\ntime table and scale of freight, on all railways of the European\ncontinent; the Madrid conference, for international protection of\nindustrial property, and above all the Labour Congress held at Berlin\nby William II.'s invitation.\n\nWhilst in this way the nations' own desire and the needs of the case\ngrow and branch into great common interests, the friends of peace\nunceasingly set before themselves this distinct goal, \"Right before\nmight.\"\n\nTo paint the historic background of the activity of the friends of\npeace would be almost synonymous with bringing forward all that is\nuniting, important and lasting in the history of the nations. It would\nbe a \"saga\" on the welfare of the human race through all time. Such a\ntask I do not undertake. I give only a short indication of what, in our\nown time, organized peace-work is.\n\nIts activity was almost a result of the wars of Napoleon, which were\nterminated by the Peace of Paris, November, 1815. These wars had\ndeeply stirred the minds of many, both in the old and new world, and\ndirected their thoughts to the apathy of the Christian Churches in not\nproclaiming, with unmistakable emphasis, that war is irreconcilable\nwith the teaching of Christ.\n\nThis view was represented in America by Dr. W. ELLERY CHANNING, and Dr.\nNOAH WORCESTER, who as early as 1814 stirred up the friends of peace\nto organize themselves into united work.\n\nA Peace Society was formed in New York in August, 1815; and in November\nof the same year the Ohio Peace Society. The Massachusetts Peace\nAssociation (Boston) started in January, 1816, and a similar society\nwas begun in Rhode and Maine in 1817. These, with that of South\nCarolina, united in 1828, and formed the AMERICAN PEACE SOCIETY, an\nassociation which is still in active operation. Also in Philadelphia an\nassociation was formed, which was succeeded in 1868 by the UNIVERSAL\nPEACE UNION.\n\nIn 1814 a zealous philanthropist, Mr. William Allen, a member of\nthe Society of Friends, invited a number of persons to his house in\n_London_ to form a peace association. They did not at once agree\nupon the best method, and the proposal was deferred for a time. But\nafter the conclusion of peace was signed in 1816, Mr. Allen, with the\nassistance of his friend Mr. Joseph Tregelles Price, also a member\nof the Society of Friends, called his friends together again, and\nsucceeded in bringing into existence the English peace association,\nunder the name of the PEACE SOCIETY.\n\nThe source from which the association sprang is to be found in the\nSociety of Friends (Quakers), that sect which has always been a\nfaithful proclaimer of the peace principles of Christianity. But the\nfounders were not all of this society. Some were members of the Church\nof England and of other religious persuasions.\n\nAs the foundation of its effort, the association advanced the great\nprinciple that war is contrary to the spirit of Christianity and to the\ntrue interests of mankind. It has always been open to persons of all\npersuasions. One of its first stipulations was, that \"the society shall\nconsist of all ranks of society who will unite in forwarding peace\non earth and goodwill amongst men.\" The association has always been\ninternational. From its commencement it proclaimed its desire to bring\nother nations as far as possible within the reach of its operations.\nSome of the first acts of the founders were to translate its most\nimportant writings into French, German, Spanish and Italian.\n\nImmediately after, in 1816, Mr. J.T. Price, the most zealous amongst\nthe founders, undertook a journey to _France_ to gain adhesion and\nco-operation amongst Christians and philanthropists in that country.\nMany hindrances lay in the way of forming an association in that\ncountry which should have peace only for its object. These difficulties\nwere overcome by founding a Society of Christian Morals (_La Soci\u00e9t\u00e9\nde morale Chr\u00e9tienne_), whose aim was to bring the teaching of\nChristianity to bear upon the social question. This society continued\nfor more than a quarter of a century and numbered amongst its members\nmany illustrious Frenchmen. Its first president was the Duke of\nRochefoucauld-Liancourt; its vice-president was the Marquis of the same\nname, the son of the above. Amongst the members were Benjamin Constant,\nthe Duke of Broglie, de Lamartine, Guizot, Carnot, and Duchatel. The\npromotion of peace was one of the objects of the Society.\n\nA branch of it was formed in _Geneva_, under the leadership of Count\nSellon, and the English parent society stood in close and lively\nconnection with both these associations. It had for many years in its\nservice an active man, Stephen Rigaud, who travelled through France,\nBelgium, Germany and Holland, held meetings, distributed tracts, and\nformed committees and associations in furtherance of peace.\n\nBetween the years 1848 and 1851 a still greater aggressive peace\nmovement was set on foot upon the European continent, by means of\ncongresses held at Brussels, Paris and Frankfort, and by the attendance\nof many hundred delegates from all the countries of Europe.\n\nThis effort for peace was entered upon by the Secretary, Mr. Henry\nRichard. At least twenty times he visited the Continent, speaking\nfor peace and arbitration in many, if not most, of the largest\ncities--Paris, Berlin, Vienna, Pesth, Dresden, Leipsic, Munich,\nFrankfort, Brussels, Antwerp, Bremen, Cologne, the Hague, Amsterdam,\nGenoa, Rome, Florence, Venice, Milan, Turin, etc.\n\nThese efforts bore good fruit. The friends of peace began to stir.\nPeace societies were formed, devoted attachments were made, and\npersonal intercourse created between the adherents of peace principles\nin various lands.\n\nThis was especially the case in France, where _la Ligue Internationale\nde la Paix_ was founded by M. Fr\u00e9d\u00e9ric Passy. In 1872 the name of the\nleague was changed to the _Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 Fran\u00e7aise des Amis de la Paix_.\nThis name it retained until its amalgamation with the _Comit\u00e9 de Paris\nde la F\u00e9d\u00e9ration Internationale de l'Arbitrage et de la Paix_, founded\nby Mr. Hodgson Pratt in 1883. The new society, formed of the union of\nthe two, bears the name of the _Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 Fran\u00e7aise de l'Arbitrage entre\nNations_.\n\nThe _Ligue Internationale de la Paix el de la Libert\u00e9_ was founded\nat Geneva by M. Charles Lemonnier as far back as 1867. Under the\npowerful leadership of this aged captain of peace the league has, by\nits activity in promoting the idea of the \"United States of Europe,\"\nconstantly sought to work in a practical way for its object,--peace and\nfreedom.\n\nThe same year, too, were founded the _Ligue du D\u00e9sarmement_ and the\n_Union de la Paix_, at Havre.\n\nBut the most remarkable occurrence in this domain was the spontaneous\ninterchange of addresses and greetings between workmen in France and\nGermany, which led to the formation, in Biebrich on the Rhine, of an\nASSOCIATION OF GERMAN AND FRENCH WORKINGMEN.\n\nAs a result of a visit from Mr. Richard three years later, there was\nfounded at the Hague, Sept. 8th, 1870, \"THE DUTCH PEACE SOCIETY,\" by\nMr. Van Eck and others. Later in the same year ten similar associations\nsprang up in the Hague, Amsterdam, Zwolle, Groningen and other places.\nOne of these, the \"Women's Peace Society,\" in Amsterdam, under the\nleadership of Miss Bergendahl, deserves to be named, on account of its\nadvanced character. In 1871 this union took the name of the \"_Peace\nSociety's National Union for Holland_,\" and in 1878 of the \"Peace\nLeague of the Netherlands.\" Its present name is the \"_Universal Peace\nAssociation for the Netherlands_\" (_Algemeen Nederlandsch Vredesbond_).\nFor seventeen years Mr. Geo. Belinfante as the indefatigable secretary\nof this Union. He died in 1888, and was succeeded by M.C. Bake, of the\nHague.\n\nIn 1871 the BELGIAN ASSOCIATION was formed at Brussels, and at the same\ntime a local association at Verviers. Later on, April 15th, 1889, was\nfounded the Belgian branch of the International Arbitration and Peace\nAssociation (_Federation Internationale de l'Arbitrage et de la Paix,\nsection Belge_), under the leadership of M.E. de Laveleye.\n\nThe ENGLISH PARENT SOCIETY has, in the course of three-quarters of a\ncentury, employed every means that can serve to advance a public cause.\nBy lectures and public meetings; by the distribution of literature and\na diligent use of the press; by appeals to the peoples; petitions to\nthe Governments; resolutions in parliament; by adapting themselves to\nSunday and other schools, by influencing the religious community, the\nclergy and teachers; by combinations and interviews with peace friends\nin all lands--by all practicable means it has sought to work towards\nits goal.\n\nFirst and foremost, it has advocated arbitration as a substitute for\nwar, laboured for the final establishment of an International Law, and\na Tribunal for the nations, and for a gradual reduction of standing\narmies; at the same time it has never ceased to raise its voice\nagainst the wars in which England and other nations have engaged. At\na Universal International Peace Congress, held in London under the\nauspices of the society in 1843, it was resolved to send an address\n\"to the Governments of the civilized world,\" whereby they should be\nearnestly conjured to consider the principle of arbitration, and to\nrecognise it. This address was sent to forty-five Governments. By a\ndeputation to the powers at the Paris Congress in 1856, this society\nsucceeded, as before said, in getting the principle of arbitration\nrecognised, etc.\n\nFrom the commencement, the English and American peace societies have\nworked side by side with brotherly concord. There are over forty peace\nsocieties in America. Besides these already named--viz., the _American\nPeace Society_, and the _Universal Peace Union_--the following are most\nimportant: _The Christian Arbitration and Peace Society_, Philadelphia;\n_the National Arbitration League_, Washington; _the American Friends'\nPeace Society_, for Indiana and Ohio, founded December 1, 1873; and\n_the International Code Committee_, New York, of which David Dudley\nField is president.\n\nOn the 25th of July, 1870, the English WORKMEN'S PEACE ASSOCIATION, now\ncalled the INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION LEAGUE, was founded by members\nof the \"Reform League,\" a great union of workmen in London. Two years\nlater this Arbitration League, under Mr. W. R. Cremer's powerful\nleadership, had well-appointed local associations all over the country,\nand nearly a hundred zealous leaders in various towns. Since then Mr.\nCremer has become a Member of Parliament, and as such has had the\nopportunity of helping the peace cause in many ways; for example, as\na zealous participant in the deputation of twelve to the President of\nthe United States, which has been mentioned more particularly in the\nbeginning of this work.\n\nIn April, 1874, was formed the WOMEN'S AUXILIARY OF THE PEACE SOCIETY.\nThis continued to work in connection with the English parent society\nuntil 1882, when a division took place. Part of the members gathered\nthemselves into an auxiliary, now called the LOCAL PEACE ASSOCIATION\nAUXILIARY OF THE PEACE SOCIETY, which has thirty-three sub-associations\nin England only. The other part formed the WOMEN'S PEACE AND\nARBITRATION ASSOCIATION.[31]\n\nAt the same time great progress was made upon the Continent.\n\nIn Italy a LEAGUE OF PEACE AND BROTHERHOOD was founded as early as\n1878, by Signor E.T. Moneta.\n\nA workmen's peace association was formed at Paris in 1879, by M.\nDesmoulins and others, under the name of the _Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 des travailleurs\nde la Paix_.\n\nAt the close of 1882, The DANISH PEACE SOCIETY, or \"Society for the\nNeutralization of Denmark,\" was founded in Copenhagen, with FREDRIK\nBAJER, M.P., as chairman, and twenty-five local associations in\nDenmark.[32] There is also at Copenhagen a \"Women's Progress Society,\"\nwhich, with Mrs. Bajer as president, placed the cause of peace\nprominently upon its programme.\n\nAt a meeting of members of the Riksdag, in the spring of 1883,\na SWEDISH PEACE SOCIETY was formed, which has for its object to\nco-operate with the _International Arbitration and Peace Association_\nof Great Britain and Ireland, in working for the preservation of peace\namong nations, and the establishment of an International Tribunal\nof Arbitration, under the mutual protection of the States, to which\ndisputes that may arise may be referred. The first chairman of the\nsociety was S.A. HEDLUND, who has long laboured in Sweden for the\nspread of information as to the efforts of the friends of peace.\n\nThe same year a NORWEGIAN PEACE SOCIETY was formed, which, however,\nlike the Swedish sister association, has been apparently only\ndead-alive of late.\n\nThis is the result, certainly in great degree, of the slender interest\ntaken by the cultivated classes, who in general pose as either\nindifferent or antagonistic to peace work; indifferent, because, in\nignorance of the subject, they look upon organized peace effort as\nfanciful and fruitless; antagonistic, because they see in these efforts\na hindrance to getting the national defence strengthened by increased\nmilitary forces. As regards Norway, there are, however, signs that a\ndifferent view of things has lately begun to make itself felt.[33]\n\nIn France the peace societies received strength in 1884, through\nthe foundation by M. GODIN of the _Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 de Paix et d' Arbitrage\nInternational du Familist\u00e8re de Guise_ (Aisne), Godin's activity has\nembraced not less than forty-two departments in France. Besides these\nmay be named the _Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 d'Aide Fraternelle et d'Etudes Sociales_, the\n_Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 de Paix par l'Education_ at Paris, the _Groupe des Amis de la\npaix \u00e0 Clermont-Ferrand_, _La Fraternit\u00e9 Universelle_ Grammond, Canton\nde St. Galmier (Loire), and the _Association des Jeunes Amis de la\nPaix_, N\u00eemes.\n\nThe INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION AND PEACE ASSOCIATION for Great Britain\nand Ireland was founded in 1880.[34] This association, with which the\nScandinavian society should co-operate the most closely, has a worthy\nchairman in Mr. HODGSON PRATT, a man whose devoted and untiring zeal\nhas made him a distinguished leader of the peace movement, to which he\nhas dedicated the whole business of his life.\n\nHis sphere of action has also included the Continent, and borne good\nfruit. Amongst others he succeeded in instituting peace societies at\nDARMSTADT, STUTTGART and FRANKFORT; a committee of the association at\nBUDAPEST; and in ROME, the _Associazione per l'Arbitrato e la Pace tra\nle Nazione_, with RUGGIERO BONGHI as president; and also in MILAN, the\n_Unione Lombarda per la Pace e l'Arbitrato Internazionale_.\n\nIn the course of the last three years, 1886-90, the idea of peace has\nmade great progress in Italy. The movement has not been confined to any\nspecial class of society, or to any particular political or religious\nparty, but has spread alike amongst all.\n\nIn the autumn of 1888 the central committee of the _Italian League\nof Peace and Liberty_ sent out a leaflet, with a protest against any\nwar with France. The central committee, which numbers amongst its\nmembers, senators, deputies, and many of Garibaldi's former companions\nin arms, declares: \"The league requires all Italians, young and old,\nwomen and men, philosophers, tradesmen and working men, to unite all\ntheir energies in the great work of peace; that there may be an end of\narmaments, which are a positive ruin to all nations.\"\n\nIn the course of 1889 several important peace congresses were held.\nIn Milan, such a congress met for the first time, January 13th,\nrepresenting 200 associations in France, Italy, and Spain and for\nthe second time, April 28th, when fifty-four Italian societies were\nrepresented. Eight days after the first Milan meeting, a similar one\ntook place in Naples, attended by 3,000 persons, which expressed the\nunited views of five hundred associations.\n\nLastly, a congress was held in Rome, May 10-14, which represented\nthirty-nine peace associations, the ex-minister Bonghi in the chair.\nThe meeting expressed the desire that governments would find means to\ndiminish the war burdens by international agreements similar to those\nby which economic and scientific matters are already arranged, as well\nas questions dealing with general sanitary concerns. A committee,\nconsisting of six senators and deputies, was afterwards chosen for\nfurther work in the cause of peace.\n\nA specially noteworthy feature in these Italian peace congresses is the\ndeep repugnance to the Triple Alliance--which is regarded as a standing\nmenace of war,--and a strong craving for good relations with France.\n\nThe way to this lies through increased peaceful connection. This was\nespecially manifest in the meeting at Rome, which had to prepare for\nthe participation of Italians in the Peace Congress at Paris in the\nsummer of 1889.\n\nThe Congresses of 1889 formed part of the great commemoration of the\nRevolution; that meeting of international fraternity which, in the\nwords of President Carnot in his opening, speech, \"shall hasten the\ntime when the resources of the nations, and the labour of mankind,\nshall be dedicated only to the works of peace.\"\n\nOne of these gatherings, the Universal Peace Congress, June 23-27,\nwhich was composed of delegates from the peace societies of Europe and\nAmerica, had, amongst other vocations, to express itself on certain\ngeneral principles for carrying forward the idea of arbitration. It\nspecially maintained and emphasized that the principle of arbitration\nought to form a part of fundamental law in the constitution of every\nState.[35] Before the meeting closed, it was decided that the next\nUniversal Congress should be held in London in 1890.\n\nThe other assembly, an INTERPARLIAMENTARY CONFERENCE (June 29-30),\ncomposed exclusively of legislators from many lands, was entitled to\nexpress itself more definitely on the adoption of actual measures;\nnotably, on the best means of bringing about arbitration treaties\nbetween certain States and groups of States.\n\nWith this Interparliamentary Conference, this international\nparliamentary meeting, we come to the beginning of a new and exalted\norganization, forming almost a powerful prelude to co-operation between\nEngland, America and France, such as I spoke of in the commencement of\nthis book.\n\nAfter the emissaries of the 270 members of the legislature had in the\nautumn of 1887 fulfilled their mission to America, and had started an\nactive movement there which has since spread over the whole American\ncontinent, English and French representatives of the people met in\nParis, October 31st, 1888, and decided on behalf of many hundreds\nof their absent associates that a meeting of members of as many\nparliaments as possible should take place during the Universal\nExposition in 1889.\n\nThis resolution was carried into effect. On June 10th about one\nhundred parliamentary representatives assembled in Paris from Belgium,\nDenmark, England, France, Hungary, Italy, Liberia, the United States\nand Spain. Nearly four hundred members of various parliaments had given\ntheir adhesion to the design of the meeting. Jules Simon opened the\nproceedings. Many important resolutions were passed, with a view to\npractically carrying into effect the principle of arbitration. After\nthis it was arranged that a similar assembly should meet annually in\none or other of the capital cities of the countries in sympathy; in\n1890, in London; and lastly, a committee of forty was chosen, composed,\naccording to resolution, of six members of every nationality, which\nshould undertake the preparation of the next conference, send out the\ninvitations, collect the necessary contributions, and in the interim do\nall in their power to remove the misunderstandings which might possibly\narise, when it appealed, as it would be needful to do, to public\nopinion.\n\nPursuant to the invitation of this committee, the second International\nAssembly of Members of Parliament met in London, July 22-23, 1890.\n\nIn consequence of the second Universal Peace Congress, the central\ngathering of the peace societies, being held only a short time\npreviously (July 14-19), a large number of influential men attended\nthis international meeting of legislators; but whilst amongst those who\ntook part in the first named conference, the Universal Peace Congress,\nwere a fair number of M.P.s of various countries, yet (with few\nexceptions) all those who took part in the interparliamentary meeting\nwere members of one or other national legislative assembly.\n\nThe second Interparliamentary Conference, in London, 1890, had double\nthe attendance of the first, in Paris, members from Austria, Belgium,\nDenmark, England, France, Germany, Holland, Hungary, Italy, Norway,\nSpain and Sweden; besides which, more than a thousand representatives\nof the people, who were prevented attending, signified by letter their\nadhesion. Amongst these were Gladstone, Clemenceau, the Vice-president\nof the German Reichstag, Baumbach, the Italian Prime Minister Crispi,\nAndrassy, and three French Ministers. Ninety-four Italian senators\nand deputies, and thirty-one members of the Spanish Cortes, in their\nrespective addresses, expressed their sympathy with the work of the\nconference. The ex-Lord Chancellor, Lord Herschell, acted as chairman.\n\nThe most important resolution of the meeting was, that all civilized\ngovernments were urged to refer all disputes in which they might be\ninvolved to arbitration for solution.\n\nThose present bound themselves to work to the best of their ability for\nthe object, especially through the press and in the national assembly\nof their own lands, and thus gradually win public opinion over to the\ncause.\n\nAs a first step towards practically settling international disputes by\narbitration, the conference urged that in all treaties affecting trade,\nliterature, or other arrangements, a special arbitral clause should be\ninserted.\n\nAmongst other resolutions it was voted, that a parliamentary committee\nshould be created in each country for mutual consultation on\ninternational matters.\n\nLastly, a standing interparliamentary committee of thirty members\nwas chosen, to serve as a connecting link in the interval between the\nconferences.\n\nThe third Interparliamentary Conference will meet in Rome in 1891.\n\nIn the fact that these conferences are composed of legislators chosen\nby the people lies their peculiar significance. They speak with power,\nbecause they are supported by millions of electors in various lands.\nThe weight of their utterances naturally increases in the proportion\nin which the number of members grows. As yet this parliament of the\npeoples represents only a minority of the national assemblies; but the\nday may be coming when it will express the opinion of the majority, and\nthat would be the triumph of right over might.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nIn the effort to reach this goal there must be no settling into\nstagnation. The peace societies especially must work with all their\nmight to get friends of peace into parliament, and subscribe to enable\nthem to take part in the interparliamentary meetings. It would, of\ncourse, be still better if the means for their attendance were supplied\nby a public grant.\n\nHere the NORWEGIAN STORTING has set an example which will be to its\nhonour for all time; for after about sixty members had joined the\ninterparliamentary union, and chosen Messrs. Ullmann, Horst and Lund\nas representatives to the conference in London, 1890; and after the\nArbitration resolution moved had been adopted by the Storting (voted\nJuly 2nd, 1890, by eighty votes against twenty-nine), a subsidy of\n1,200 kroner was granted for the travelling expenses of the three\ndelegates to, the London conference.\n\nThis is probably the first time in the life of the nations that a State\nhas granted money in support of a direct effort to make a breach in the\nold system of Cain.\n\nThere is less strain in America: a similar inception seems to be at\nhand. Long before the great rousing in 1887, the present United States\nMinister, JAMES G. BLAINE, was possessed with the idea of bringing\nabout a peace-treaty between all the independent States of North and\nSouth America. He stood at the head of the Foreign Department of the\nUnion when General Garfield was President, 1881, and already at that\ntime entertained this grand idea. He desired, in order to realize it,\nto invite all the American States, by means of government emissaries,\nto take part in an international congress at Washington. In the interim\nGarfield died, and when Arthur became President, Blaine ceased to be\nMinister of Foreign Affairs; but as soon as, upon Harrison being chosen\nto the presidency, he became Foreign Minister again, he resumed the\ninterrupted work.\n\nIn June, 1888, the President confirmed a resolution adopted by\nCongress, empowering him to invite all the American States to a\nconference composed of emissaries from their governments, with the view\nof establishing a Tribunal of Arbitration for settling differences that\nmay arise between them; and for establishing by commercial treaties\nmore facile trade combinations, adapted to the needs of the various\nStates, and their productive and economic well-being.\n\nThe invitations were issued, and met with approval by all the\nindependent States throughout America.\n\nThe representatives of these States met at Washington, Oct. 1st,\n1889, in a deliberative assembly, which was styled the PAN-AMERICAN\nCONFERENCE. Mr. Blaine was voted to the chair, and under his leading\nthe members of the congress decided to begin with a circular tour of\nforty days through the whole of the States of the Union. Its labours\nwere afterwards continued until April 18th, 1890.\n\nThe results of the Conference as regards the common interests of\ntrade and commerce, etc., will only be felt gradually, since many\nof these matters are of intricate character, and in some instances\nrequire entirely fresh international transactions. But as regards\nthe chief thing--viz., the establishment of a permanent tribunal of\narbitration--the object was achieved.\n\nCongress almost unanimously[36] adopted the resolution of the report\nof the committee respecting the election of such a supreme judicial\nauthority in case of any menacing international disagreement.\n\nThe members of the Conference were not authorized to conclude binding\ntreaties. Their task was confined to deliberating upon affairs which\nmight have a reciprocal interest in various countries, and then laying\nbefore their governments such resolutions as in the opinion of the\nConference might best promote the well-being of all the States.\n\nNevertheless the majority of the States later bound themselves to the\nconclusions of the congress. Indeed, a week before the assembly broke\nup the respective members for Brazil, Bolivia, Columbia, Equador,\nGuatemala, Hayti, Honduras, Nicaragua and Salvador, were empowered to\nsign at Washington the arbitration-treaty adopted by the Pan-American\nConference; and the other governments have since in the same way\nsanctioned it.[37]\n\nWhen this document has been fully confirmed, a quarter of the inhabited\nworld will be rendered inviolate, and 120 millions of men set free from\nthe chronic frenzy of war.\n\nIf minor breaches of the peace possibly may not thereby be for ever\nprevented, yet certainly the irresponsible system of violence will\nbecome powerless against the force of civilization which is spreading\nover the whole Western hemisphere.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 27: As an adherent of the Conservative party, he has always\nheld to a strong armed force, and hardly ever supported peace efforts.]\n\n[Footnote 28: That he does not take in the Scandinavian peninsula, must\nbe because he regards the position of the northern kingdoms as too\nremote from the continental quarrels to be sensibly disturbed by them;\nor because he has not a high opinion of the fitness of their military\nforces for attack, which is here alluded to.]\n\n[Footnote 29: According to the proposal of an old diplomatist, the\nSultan should be given a similar position in Constantinople to that\nof the Pope, now, in Rome. Thereby the Sultan would become innocuous\nto Europe, but continue to be the \"Ruler of the Faithful\" to Asia.\n(\"La question d'Orient devant l'Europe democratique.\" Paris: E. Dentu,\n_libraire_, 1886).]\n\n[Footnote 30: In the United States Congress, Mr. Blaine has introduced\na bill for calling an international conference in Washington, in 1891,\nfor making an alliance, whose object is the suppression of slavery and\nthe prohibition of alcohol in uncivilized countries. The conference is\nfurther to discuss the creation of a tribunal of Arbitration, for the\nsolution of international questions, and a general disarmament.]\n\n[Footnote 31: Since amalgamated with the Women's Committee of the\nInternational Arbitration and Peace Association.]\n\n[Footnote 32: For the objects of this Association see Appendix.]\n\n[Footnote 33: \"On August 8th, 1891, at a meeting at Seljord, a New\nNorwegian Peace Association was formed, and a provisional Committee\nappointed.\" TRANS.]\n\n[Footnote 34: For programme of the Association see Appendix.]\n\n[Footnote 35: This principle is likely to be realized by the bill of\nthe constitution of the Brazilian Republic, sanctioned by the executive\nof the new free State, which proclaims that the Government may not\nbegin a war without having first appealed to arbitration.]\n\n[Footnote 36: The scruples entertained by Chili, Argentina and Mexico\nappear to have been dropped, in the case at least of the two last\nnamed.]\n\n[Footnote 37: For provisions of this Treaty see Appendix.]\n\n\n\n\nTHE PROSPECTS.\n\n\nThe events which I have here described will perhaps one day be regarded\nas the transition into a new era. But specially here, in the Old World,\nwith its many unsettled accounts, we cannot rely upon bright pictures\nof the future. We are convinced of nothing beyond the range of our own\nknowledge and experience.\n\nI have thought so myself, and therefore I have endeavoured to keep to\nfacts which no one can deny.\n\nIt is a fact that WARS CONTINUALLY DIMINISH in proportion as peoples\nare brought nearer to one another by trade and commerce. The old\nwarlike condition has ceased. Formerly not a year passed without war in\nEurope--in the Middle Ages hardly a week. After 1815 an international\npeace reigned over most of the European States for forty years. In the\nScandinavian peninsula that peace is continuing still. Before that\ntime, at least until 1721, Sweden was almost continually involved in\nwar. We reckon two hundred and sixty years of war to the Kalmar Union,\nand the proneness to invade and defend the countries on the other side\nthe Baltic.\n\nThe old CAUSES OF WAR ARE BEING REMOVED. Certainly new ones arise as a\nresult of selfish patriotism, breaking out in new acts of violence. But\nthese outbreaks of barbarism become continually more rare. Unhappily,\nthey are so much the more horrible when they do occur, but yet much\nMore transitory. This is applicable to all the great wars in the last\nhalf of the present century. No thirty years' war is known now.\n\nIn consequence of the shorter flow of blood the wounds get time to\nheal, and the divided interests are allowed to grow together again.\nThe levers of civilization are again in motion; commerce spreads over\nland and sea by steam, electricity, and other motive powers. The\nvictories of Alexander and Napoleon are cast into the shade by the\ntriumphal procession of the tiny postage stamp around the world. Trade\nand industry, art and science, efforts in the direction of universal\nmorality and enlightenment, all branch out and weave around the\nnations a boundless web of common interests, which, though at certain\nintervals violently torn asunder by brute force, grows together again\nwith increased strength and in broader compass; until one day, under\nthe majesty of law, it will form an irresistible civilizing power.\n\nThis is what in REALITY IS TAKING PLACE. Men do not in general see it;\nand this, because they busy themselves so much with warlike notions,\nand trouble themselves so little about events of the character that I\nhave dwelt upon in the foregoing pages.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe friends of peace ought to stimulate one another, especially when\nthere is gloom over the great world, and no one knows whence the\napproaching calamity may spring. Once it was warded off from our land\nby a wise measure of one of our kings. I refer to Oscar I., when he\nsaved us from being embroiled in the chances of war, by drawing up a\nDECLARATION OF NEUTRALITY in 1854, which was approved by the united\npowers, and earned for him the homage and gratitude of the Swedish\nRiksdag, in an address which lauded him as one of the wisest and\nnoblest of kings.[38]\n\nBut there is little security that the same expedient will always lead\nto a like successful result, if people wait till war is at the door\nbefore setting to work.\n\nIn time of peace, and during the specially good relations which obtain\nbetween the two English-speaking nations, as well as between France\nand America, our fellow-workers on both sides the Atlantic are making\nuse of the favourable opportunity for trying to get this good relation\nestablished by law.\n\nIt may well be asked why we, who are friendly with the whole world,\nshould not be able to do the same, not only with respect to Siam, but\nalso first and foremost with our near neighbours.\n\nIt was this thought which led to the Arbitration resolution in 1890, in\nthe Storting and in the Riksdag.\n\nAt the first meeting of the Left (Liberals) of the Storting, Feb. 4th,\nthe subject was discussed and gained unanimous adhesion. Whereupon\nfollowed the resolution in the Storting on the 21st, which was adopted\nby a large majority, March 5th, after the Minister of State (Stang) had\ndelivered a long speech against the resolution in vain.\n\nAfter this successful result, a similar resolution for Sweden was\nbrought into the First Chamber by F.T. Borg, and in the Second by J.\nAndersson. The reports of the committees upon it ran diversely. The\ncommittee of the First Chamber opposed, and that of the Second Chamber\napproved, the resolution. On May 12th the question was thrown out in\nboth Chambers.[39]\n\nMr. Borg spoke with dignity for his resolution in a long speech. This\nwas answered by the chairman of the committee, with a reminder of the\nperverse condition of the world and of the human race. The resolution\ncontained a \"meaningless expression of opinion.\" It was a real danger\nfor small nations to go to sleep, hoping and believing in a lasting\npeace. It was now just as in the olden times: those who loved peace\nand would preserve it \"must prepare for war.\" The speaker had, as\nchairman of the committee, expressed sympathy with the resolution, but\nhe added, \"one does not get far with paper and words; and, according to\nmy opinion, the honourable mover of the resolution will certainly show\nmore love for peace if he, next year, on coming back with this peace\nbusiness, will set about it with a proposition for some ironclads and\nartillery regiments or such like things, of more effectual service than\nthe platonic love which he has expressed; and I venture to predict that\nboth the committee and the Chamber will support him more powerfully\nthan to-day.\"\n\nAfter another distinguished genius had expressed himself in the same\nwell-known fashion, wherein proofs were conspicuous by their absence,\nand the narrow circle of thought was filled with scorn and slighting\ntalk about \"pious notions,\" etc., the High Chamber threw out the bill\nby fifty-six votes against four.\n\nIn the Second Chamber the debate was opened by the Foreign Minister\nwith a speech which clearly enough justifies the \"MEMORIAL\nDIPLOMATIQUE\" where it points to the necessity of the study of the\narbitration-system having a high place amongst the requirements made of\nthose who enter the path of diplomacy;--a thing that they have actually\nbegun seriously to set before themselves in England.\n\nIn full accord with the evidence brought forward above, the judicial\nprofessor of the Chamber declared in short that the Chamber would\ndisgrace itself by adopting the resolution before it.\n\nAfter the mover of the resolution and some who shared his views had\nexpressed their hope that the Chamber would not fall back from the\nposition it took in 1874 upon this question, a speaker rose who\nrequires to be met, Herr A. Hedin.\n\nHe began with the assertion that if a refusal of the report of the\ncommittee would show that the Chamber had now changed its opinion,\nthey had before them sufficient reason for this. He wondered that a\nresolution of such a nature as this had been brought forward, so soon\nafter the unpleasant experience which the country and people of Sweden\nlately had in a so-called decision by arbitration. \"The Chamber will\nplease to remember,\" continued the speaker, \"that the king, with no\nauthority from the Riksdag, agreed with Spain to appeal to arbitration\nupon the difficulties that had arisen on the right understanding of\nthe prolonged commercial treaty with Spain. Also the Chamber will\nplease to remember that this arbitration tribunal neither acted upon\nthe plan settled in the agreement, nor did it act in harmony with\nthe instructions of the treaty; and what was worse, the so-called,\nor supposed, sentence which this one-man arbitration tribunal passed\ndid not concern the matter, which according to the agreement was to\nhave been settled by arbitration, but quite another, which could not\nreasonably be subjected to arbitration--though the matter was, so far\nas we were legally concerned, made to appear as though Sweden had\nreceived an injustice in the principal matter which should have been\ntried by arbitration, but which was not--a circumstance which, with the\nSpanish authorities, has greatly weakened the position in law due to\nSwedish citizens, whose rights have been violated in so unprecedented a\nmanner by the mode of procedure in consequence of which arbitration was\nappealed to.\"\n\nAll this had truth in it. But does that prove anything against the\nusefulness of arbitration clauses in treaties of commerce?\n\nThe agreement referred to between the united kingdoms and Spain,\nJanuary 8th, 1887, establishes:--\n\n \"A question which affects customs or the carrying out of commercial\n treaties, or relates to results of some special violation of the\n same, shall, when all attempts to come to an amicable agreement and\n all friendly discussions have proved fruitless, be referred to an\n arbitration tribunal, whose decision shall be binding on both parties.\"\n\nAccording to this it may be plainly seen, that the well-known\nSwedo-Spanish SPIRIT-DISPUTE, to which Mr. Hedin alluded, ought to have\nbeen solved in its entirety by arbitration. The Spanish Government,\nhowever, maintained that this affected Spanish internal concerns,\nsince in fact the forced sale of Karlstamms-Volagets brandy stores\nin Spain took place as a result of a new spirit law, to which the\narbitration clause in this case could not be applied.\n\nThis starting-point for the judgment of the whole dispute was accepted\nby the Swedish Government; which also agreed to let an arbitrator\nsettle whether the question of the spirit tax was independent of\nthe treaty or not. Both Governments agreed to choose the Portuguese\nex-Foreign Minister, Count de Casal Riberio, as arbitrator, and he\nexpressed himself in favour of the Spanish construction. And with this\nthe whole matter was settled.\n\nNo one can seriously think that the method of procedure on the Swedish\nside, which led to so distressing a violation of justice as that\nreferred to by Herr Hedin, could prove anything against the principle\nof arbitration. On the other hand, it appears to betray the character\nof the statesmanship of our then Foreign Minister; which indeed earned\nfor him a diamond-set snuffbox from the Emperor William II., but\notherwise, the blame only of sensible people.\n\nHerr Hedin, who has a weakness for strong expressions, had the\nopportunity of using some such in their right place. Unhappily, this\ncannot be said with truth of the closing words of his speech, where he\nremarks that the expressions of the Foreign Minister are so decisive\nagainst the bill that they deal the report of the committee of the\nSecond Chamber a right deadly blow.\n\nThe committee had proposed that the king, with the authority which \u00a7\n11 in the form of government accords him, should seek to bring about\nsuch agreements with foreign powers, that future possible differences\nbetween the powers named and Sweden should be settled by arbitration.\n\nThe deadly blow must be the remark of the Foreign Minister that\nquestions affecting the _existence and independence of nations_ must be\nexcepted from decisions by arbitration.\n\nThis principle is known to be universally accepted, and in no way\nstands in antagonism to the report of the committee, which of course\nleft the hands of the king as free as possible to promote the idea of\narbitration according to circumstances.\n\nHowever, the report of the committee was thrown out by eighty-eight\nvotes against eighty-three.\n\nHerr Hedin got his way. He has always been the consistent opposer of\nthe active friends of peace; and this time he has besides won the\ngratitude even of our Government organ, _Nya Dagligt Allehanda_, which\ncalls his speech glittering; meaning that upon this resolution \"there\nwas no need to waste many words,\" and continues thus:--\n\n \"The resolution is worthy of notice, because it shows the return of\n the Chamber to a sounder perception of this question. It seems at last\n to recognise the extravagance of the expectation certain fanatics\n entertain of bringing about a lasting peace by so apparently simple\n a means as a tribunal of arbitration. We have indeed, as Herr Hedin\n reminded us, now had experience ourselves of how unsatisfactory\n this can be; and it certainly appears that they must be lacking in\n common sense who would question the justice of the Foreign Minister's\n reminder, that arbitration cannot be appealed to when a nation's\n political freedom or independence is touched by the issue.\"\n\nI may here beg leave to calm the ruffled feelings of the honourable\nGovernment organ by bringing to remembrance the lesson, otherwise\napplicable also, which our dismembered sister-land on the other side\nof the Sound offers us.\n\nAt the London Conference in 1864, the representative of England, Lord\nRussell, referred to the decision arrived at by the Paris Congress\nin 1856, that States which had any serious dispute should appeal to\nthe mediation of a friendly power before taking to arms. In harmony\nwith this the British plenipotentiary proposed that the question,\nwhether the boundary line should be drawn between the lines of\nAabenraa-Toender, on the one side, or Dannewerke-Sli on the other,\nshould be decided by arbitration. Prussia and Austria consented to\naccept the mediation of a neutral power; but Denmark replied to the\nproposition with a distinct refusal. In the same way Denmark refused\nthe proposal made first by Prussia, and later by France, that a means\nof deciding the boundary should be sought in a plebiscite of the people\nin Sleswick.\n\n_Denmark trusted too much upon might and too little upon right.\nOtherwise Sleswick had still been Danish._\n\nIf the axiom be correct, that disputes which affect the existence\nand independence of nations ought not to be submitted for solution\nto arbitration, it is of so much the greater moment to try to get\ninternational complications settled in this way, because they may swell\nup into questions of the kind first named; since in any case this means\ncould be adopted as a last resource in time of need. History knows\nof no example of the destruction of a free nation by the impartial\njudgment of arbitration.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nNow it may well appear honourable on the part of the free nations of\nthe Scandinavian peninsula that they should openly show to the whole\nworld that they are prepared (in full harmony with King Oscar II.'s\npacific expressions in the speech from the throne to the Riksdag\nand the Storting in 1890), for their own part, in all international\ncircumstances to substitute justice for brute force, and this without\ncompromising and meaningless limitations. In the Swedish arbitration\nresolution, as well as in the Norse, lies the road certainly to\nefficiently carrying out the neutral policy so strongly emphasized in\nthe speech from the throne. Besides the public gain, which a favourable\nresult in both Chambers would have been, a unanimous co-operation in\nthis cause would in a great degree have facilitated the solving of the\nimportant QUESTION OF THE UNION (UNIONELLE TVISTEMAAL).\n\nThe last named consideration will indeed claim more attention as the\nconsequences of the divergent decisions of the Storting and the Riksdag\ndevelop themselves. That these consequences will be scattering, rather\nthan uniting, the friends of peace in both lands must keep in view;\nand must look out, in time, for means to soothe them, as long as they\ncontinue.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThat which lies nearest my heart has been to help, with cheering\nwords, to strengthen the faith of my fellow-workers. If these words\nhave succeeded also, here and there, in scattering doubts, so much the\nbetter. Little-faith is faint-hearted. Without confidence in a cause,\nthere is no action. Ignorance may be enlightened, superstition wiped\nout; intolerance may become tolerant, and hate be changed into love;\nideas may be quickened, intelligence widened, and men's hearts may be\nennobled; but from _pessimism_ which can see nothing but gloomy visions\nnothing is to be expected. This offspring of materialism is one of\nthe most powerful opponents which the cause of international law and\njustice has to encounter. It is only self-deception to conceal the fact\nthat it still reigns in our Christian community.\n\nThese gloomy-sighted people refer us to history, which on every page\ntells of crime and blood, sorrow and tears. We answer by pointing to\nthe development of civilization, and show how all things slowly grow\nand ripen, whether in human life or in the world of nature.\n\nHuman perfection does not provide for an individual being a law-abiding\nmember of a human community, and exclude a community from being a\nlaw-abiding member of an alliance of States. The abolition of war\ntherefore in no way pre-supposes universal righteousness, but only a\ncertain degree of moral cultivation.\n\nBut that this perfection is not attained to cannot be any rational\nobjection _against_ striving after the perfect. Discontent with\nimperfection ought much rather to goad us on to work for what is better.\n\nNow, war is not something imperfect only: it is a summing up of all\nhuman depravity--a condition which we might expect all enlightened men\nand women would turn against with combined energies. That this does not\ntake place is an evidence that the enlightenment is not so great among\nso-called cultivated people.\n\nThe dazzling external show of war conceals from many its inner reality.\nThis applies not only to the horrors of the battle-field and their\nghastly accompaniments. Fancy's wildest pictures of the infernal abyss\nare nothing to the descriptions eye-witnesses give of this veritable\nhell. Tolsto\u00ef's pen and Veretschagin's pencil give us an idea of\nit.[40] From this misery spring untold sufferings for thousands upon\nthousands of innocent victims; and, besides, it remains to be a flowing\nsource of fresh calamities.\n\nThe ARMED PEACE is a similar calamity, which threatens European\ncivilization with complete overthrow. We have got so far in the general\nrace in the science of armaments that the yearly outlay in Europe\nfor military purposes, including the interest of national debts,\nis reckoned as about twelve milliards of kroner,[41] 650 millions\nsterling, which of course must imply a corresponding limitation of\nproductive labour.\n\nIn time of peace the European armies are reckoned at four millions\nof men. In time of war this can grow to nineteen millions; and in a\nfew years when, as intended, the new conscription law comes into full\neffect, to something like thirty millions.[42]\n\nWar, the personification of all human depravity, desolates the\nprogressive work of culture, and the armed peace which ruins the\nnations prepares new wars and augments the misery. Ignorance, war, and\npoverty follow one another in an unvarying circle.\n\nBy the side of this wild race for armaments goes on a terrible struggle\nfor existence, and discontent reigns in all lands. This condition\nof things, which fills the world with unrest and fear, must in the\nnear future have an end. It will either come in the form of a social\nrevolution, which will embrace the whole of our continent, or it may\ncome by the introduction of an established condition of international\nlaw.\n\nIt is the last named outcome that active friends of peace labour for.\nThey strive to enlighten the nations as to the means of removing and\npreventing these calamities; and they hope that the so-called educated\nclasses will cease to be inactive spectators of these efforts. While\nthey do not feel called upon to oppose the nonsense of folly, they\nlisten respectfully to objections dictated by a sincere patriotism. In\nthat feeling we ought all to be able to join. It depends upon the way\nin which this is expressed whether we can work together or must go on\nseparate lines.\n\nCommonly, we commend an action as virtuous when it does not oppose our\ninterests, but brand it as blameworthy when it in some way threatens\nour position.\n\nThus we read, with glad appreciation, the deeds of our own warriors;\nbut our admiration is changed into resentment when the exploits are\nachieved against ourselves by the heroes of other nations. When one\nsays in Sweden, \"I am not a Russian, indeed\"; they say in Russia, \"You\nbehave yourself like a Swede.\" It needs an independent third party to\ngive an impartial judgment. Right must be right.\n\nIf our so-called enemy is _really_ in the right, he does not become\nwrong _because_ he is called our enemy; and if we conquer and kill\nhim, we only thereby increase a hundredfold our terrible guilt. It is\nin the long run a loss to both sides. Here, at any rate at least, a\n_compromise_ is needed, for it is seldom the fault of _one_ when two\nquarrel.\n\nBut the endeavour to get a permanent arbitration tribunal established\ncannot, in any way, be reasonably opposed to efforts for the welfare\nof one's own country. The very consciousness of the existence of such\na tribunal would little by little, as a matter of course, bring about\nthe reign of law. It would indeed be a marvellous perversion of ideas\nwhich esteemed it dishonourable to feel bound, in case of disputes\nwith other countries, to appeal to law and justice; inasmuch as this\nvery unwillingness to seek the path of justice must excite a serious\nsuspicion as to the cause you maintain.\n\nTo lay hold on the sword under the influence of passion is like taking\na knife when intoxicated; and it is a crying absurdity to expect\npeople, who soberly know what they are doing, to go to homicide with\na light heart. That is to say, that a good man in severe conflict\nas to his duty, may possibly be forced to do a bad action to escape\nparticipation in a still worse. If he forbears to kill his brother,\nthis last will murder his father. When warriors are led out to battle,\nthe brilliant uniform ought to be laid aside, and the troops clad in\nsombre mourning, which would better accord with the naked reality.\nWhen they have slain many and come back in triumph, decorated with\nhonourable Cain-badges, they are wont in their homes to point with\npride to their brothers who lie silent in their blood. They earn a\ncharacter for having done something great; they are received with\nexultation and honourable distinctions, and praised as gods in popular\nstory. But the whole spirit and conception is false IF Christ's\nteaching of love is true; and we should long since have grown out of\nthis heathenish religion if there had not been incorporated with it\nso much patriotism, both true and false--the false wrapped in those\nhigh sounding words and phrases of self-love and vanity which still\nexercise so great a power over the easily excited spirit of the nations.\n\nBut if we set our thoughts free, confined as they are by warm devotion\nto our hereditary soil, and now and then venture to look out over the\nwide world, we shall see points of contact in the progressive effort\nof humanity; and it is our highest honour to be able to take an active\npart in this. Barriers are crumbling away one after the other. They do\nnot go down with violence; they vanish as new ideas smooth the way for\na higher conception of human dignity. Inquiry dissipates prejudice, and\ncontinually shows us new phases of the inner cohesion of the life of\nnations.\n\nThe inhabitants of Europe, says DRAPER, show a constantly increasing\ndisposition towards the complete levelling of their mutual\ndissimilarities. Climatic and meteorological differences are more and\nmore dissolved by artificial means and new inventions; and thence\narises a similarity, not only in habits of life, but in physical\nconformation. Such inventions soften the influences to which men are\nsubjected, and bring them nearer to an average type. With this greater\naffinity one to the other in bodily form, follows also a greater\nsimilarity in feeling, habit and thought.\n\nDay by day, too, the economic fellowship of Europe increases.\nCommunications by ship, railroad, post and telegraph are developed; by\nmeans of State loans, share and exchange connections, interests are\nknit together. Therefore we see the Bourse, the barometer of economic\nlife, fluctuate when serious rumours of war are afloat; an evidence\nthat common economic interests and war are at variance one with the\nother.\n\nI shall not venture further, but simply indicate in closing that even\nthe differences in language will certainly go on being gradually\nadjusted.\n\nIt is a remarkable fact, says the above-named investigator, that in\nnearly all Indo-Germanic races, family appellatives, father, mother,\nsister, brother, daughter, are the same. A similar agreement may be\nobserved in the names of a great number of everyday things, such as\nhouse, door, way; but one finds that whilst these observations hold\ngood in respect to the designation of objects of a peaceful character,\nmany of the words which have a military signification are different in\nthe different languages.\n\nHere lies, perhaps, the germ of a future progressive growth which will\nrise higher heavenward than the tower of Babel.\n\nI believe, for my part, that the English language, both on the ground\nof its cosmopolitan character and of its great expansion, is already\non the path of transition into a universal common language. According\nto Mulhall, it has spread since 1801, 310 per cent., whilst German has\nincreased 70, and French 36 per cent. A hundred years ago, Gladstone\nsays, the English tongue was spoken by fifteen millions; it is now\nspoken by 150 millions; and according to the computation of Barham\nZincke, in another hundred it will be spoken by at least 1,000 millions.\n\nThe computation is probably correct; and then not only in America,\nbut in every part of our globe, the remembrance will be treasured of\nthe little flock of Puritans who, ere they landed from their frail\n_Mayflower_ upon the desolate rocks of a strange coast, drew up in that\nundeveloped language the great social law for their future, which\nbegins with the words, \"In the name of God be it enacted.\"\n\nMankind will hold them in remembrance for their faith in a high ideal,\nthese persecuted, weary, sick, and hungry men. For it was that faith\nwhich upheld them under continued trials and sufferings, and brought\nthem a victory guiltless of blood, but fraught with blessing to coming\ngenerations.\n\nEven if many of us do not believe in the way those Christian heroes\nbelieved, yet we may in this materialistic age have strong confidence\nin the power of good, and so pronounced, that we shall gain something\nfor our cause.\n\nIn the life of Society, however, as in external nature with all its\nteeming variety, we observe a subserviency to law, which may be taken\nas the surest pledge of the final triumph of the cause of peace.\n\nFor my part, I see herein the Divine government of the world.\n\nAnd therefore my love for this idea can never be extinguished.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 38: Transactions of the Riksdag, 1853-1854, No. 4.\n\nIn the introduction to the address to the Riksdag the king observed,\nthat he had, in providing for the welfare of the nation, found himself\nobliged to declare Sweden neutral; consequently he informed the Riksdag\nof the Declaration of Neutrality, respecting which the king said:--\n\n\"The system which the king intends steadily to adhere to and employ is\na strict neutrality, founded upon sincerity, impartiality, and full\nregard to the rights of all the powers. This neutrality will entail\nupon the government of his Majesty of Sweden and Norway the following\nduties, and secure to it the following benefits: 1. To hold himself\nfree from any participation in any contentions which directly or\nindirectly may be advantageous to one and injurious to another of the\nbelligerent States....\n\n\"Such are the general principles of the neutral position, which his\nMajesty of Sweden and Norway designs to take in case war should break\nout in Europe. His Majesty feels persuaded that it will be accepted as\nin accordance with international law, and that the exact and impartial\nobservance of these principles will make it possible for his Majesty\nto continue to sustain those connections with friendly and allied\npowers which his Majesty, for his people's weal, so greatly desires to\npreserve from every infringement.\"\n\nTo this communication, satisfactory answers, accepting the decision\nannounced by his Majesty, arrived from the various Governments in the\nfollowing words: ...\n\n\"His Majesty has been pleased to announce to the assembled Estates\nof the Realm the attainment of this result, so satisfactory for the\nundisturbed continuance of peaceful transactions and the uninterrupted\ncourse of trade and navigation so much the more as on account of the\npolitical relations of Sweden and Norway with foreign powers, they may\nbe regarded as for the present amply secured. His Majesty gratefully\nacknowledges that the patriotism and the reliance upon the paternal\ndesigns of his Majesty which the Estates of the Realm have manifested\non this occasion may be regarded as having in an important degree\ncontributed to the attainment of the desired object. His Majesty, in\nexpressing his sincere satisfaction, will continue to devote incessant\npains to all the measures which the maintenance of neutrality may\nrequire in harmony with the principles laid down and promulgated by his\nMajesty. With his Majesty's royal favour and constant best wishes to\nthe Estates of the Realm.\"\n\nThe address of thanks from the Riksdag to the king:--\n\n\"After the Declaration of Neutrality made by your Majesty on behalf\nof the united kingdoms, and in concert with the King of Denmark, had\nbeen accepted by the European powers and also the United States,\nit pleased your Majesty to inform the Estates of the Realm of this\nresult, so satisfactory for the undisturbed continuance of our\npeaceful transactions, and for the uninterrupted course of our trade\nand navigation. Your Majesty has at the same time been pleased also\nto express your gracious appreciation of the patriotism and reliance\nupon your paternal designs which the Estates of the Realm have on this\noccasion manifested.\n\n\"The representatives of the Swedish people hold in grateful remembrance\nthese expressions of your Majesty's high satisfaction, and beg\nrespectfully to assure your Majesty of their deep and warm gratitude.\nThe Fatherland is indebted to your Majesty's incessant and unremitting\npains in securing the friendly relations of the united kingdoms\ntowards foreign powers during the contests in which a great part of\nEurope is at present embroiled. The Estates of the Realm offer sincere\nhomage to the resolution and wise forethought with which your Majesty,\nunder these troublous conditions, has safeguarded the interests, the\nindependence and power of the united kingdoms. With confidence between\nthe king and the people, with mutual co-operation in working together\nto promote the true welfare of our beloved Fatherland, they will, with\nthe blessing of the Highest, be henceforth preserved. The peace we\nenjoy is the dearer because it is the evidence of the fidelity with\nwhich the best interests of the country are guarded by your Majesty.\nReady to follow her noble king in all vicissitudes, the Swedish nation\nimplores the blessings of Providence upon the vigilant fatherly love\nwhose untiring care for the people's welfare reaps its reward in this\nanswering love.\n\n\"The Estates of the Realm, remain,\" etc.]\n\n[Footnote 39: Riksdagen protocol, 1890. First Chamber, No. 37; Second\nChamber, No. 45.]\n\n[Footnote 40: When Wellington once, as a victor, went over the field of\nbattle, he burst out with the cry, \"There is nothing so disastrous as a\nvictory, except a defeat.\"]\n\n[Footnote 41: That is 12,000,000,000; sufficient to furnish the annual\npension of a minister of State, 2,000 kroner, for EVERY man and woman,\nold man and suckling in the whole of Norway.--ED. of Danish edition.]\n\n[Footnote 42: Five times as many able-bodied men as there are men,\nwomen, old men and children in the whole of Norway.--Do.]\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX.\n\n\n_Note on page 123._\n\nThe ASSOCIATION for the NEUTRALIZATION of DENMARK.\n\nThe objects of this Association are to work for:\n\n1. Securing for Denmark a permanent neutrality recognised by Europe,\nlike that of Belgium or Switzerland;\n\n2. The concluding of Arbitration treaties between Denmark and other\nindependent States, especially the two Northern Kingdoms;\n\n3. The solution by a pacific means of the North Sleswick question in\naccordance with the principle of popular veto.\n\n\n_Note on page 125._\n\nINTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION and PEACE ASSOCIATION (40 and 41, Outer\nTemple, London, W.C.).\n\n\nOBJECTS.\n\nAmong the objects of this Association are the following:\n\n1. To create, educate, and organize public opinion throughout Europe in\nfavour of the substitution of ARBITRATION for WAR.\n\n2. To promote a better understanding and more friendly feeling between\nthe citizens of different nations.\n\n3. To correct erroneous statements in the public press or in\nParliaments on International questions.\n\n\nMODES OF ACTION.\n\n1. To establish in the chief cities of Europe Committees or Societies\nwhich shall correspond with each other on all matters likely to create\ndisputes, with the view of ascertaining the facts and of suggesting\njust and practical modes of settlement.\n\n2. Where Committees cannot at present be formed, to obtain the services\nof individuals acting in co-operation for the same purpose.\n\n3. To form a medium of communication between men of different countries\nby a Journal devoted to these purposes, and to promote International\nfraternity and co-operation, mutual appreciation and esteem.\n\n4. To hold periodical conferences and congresses in all parts of Europe.\n\n5. To correspond and work with similar Associations and committees in\nAmerica.\n\n\nWHAT THE ASSOCIATION HAS DONE.\n\nIt has held two International Congresses on the European continent.\nMany visits have been paid to cities in Germany, Italy, France,\nSwitzerland, Belgium, Austria, and Hungary, for the above purpose. In\nthese countries, including America, the Association has directly or\nindirectly corresponded with more than six hundred persons, many of\nwhom are Members of Parliament, journalists, literary men, professors,\nmerchants, and manufacturers.\n\nCorresponding Committees and Societies have been founded by the\nAssociation in Germany, Hungary, Italy and France; and Societies are\naffiliated in Belgium, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and California.\n\n\nWHAT IT DESIRES TO DO.\n\nTo complete the \"International Federation\" of Peace-makers proposed by\nthe Congress held at Berne in 1883.\n\nTo promote the formation of Societies belonging to this Federation in\nall parts of Europe.\n\nTo form Branches of the Association in various parts of England.\n\nTo publish a foreign edition of the monthly paper, _Concord_, in French\nand German.\n\n\n_Note on page 137._\n\nThe following are the provisions of the Treaty agreed to at the\nPAN-AMERICAN CONFERENCE.\n\nArticle I.--The republics of North, Central, and South America hereby\nadopt arbitration as a principle of American International Law for the\nsettlement of all differences, disputes, or controversies that may\narise between them.\n\nArticle II.--Arbitration shall be obligatory in all controversies\nconcerning diplomatic and consular privileges, boundaries, territories,\nindemnities, the right of navigation, and the validity, construction,\nand enforcement of treaties.\n\nArticle III.--Arbitration shall be equally obligatory in all cases\nother than those mentioned in the foregoing article, whatever may be\ntheir origin, nature, or occasion; with the single exception mentioned\nin the next following article.\n\nArticle IV.--The sole questions excepted from the provisions of the\npreceding article are those which, in the judgment of any one of the\nnations involved in the controversy, may imperil its independence. In\nwhich case, for such nation, arbitration shall be optional; but it\nshall be obligatory upon the adversary power.\n\nArticle V.--All controversies or differences, with the exception\nstated in Article IV., whether pending or hereafter arising, shall\nbe submitted to arbitration, even though they may have originated in\noccurrences ante-dating the present treaty.\n\nArticle VI.--No question shall be revived by virtue of this treaty\nconcerning which a definite agreement shall already have been reached.\nIn such cases arbitration shall be resorted to only for the settlement\nof questions concerning the validity, interpretation, or enforcement of\nsuch agreements.\n\nArticle VII.--Any Government may serve in the capacity of arbitrator\nwhich maintains friendly relations with the nation opposed to the\none selecting it. The office of arbitrator may also be entrusted to\ntribunals of justice, to scientific bodies, to public officials, or to\nprivate individuals, whether citizens or not of the States selecting\nthem.\n\nArticle VIII.--The court of arbitration may consist of one or more\npersons. If of one person, he shall be selected jointly by the nations\nconcerned. If of several persons, their selection may be jointly\nmade by the nations concerned. Should no choice be made, each nation\nclaiming a distinct interest in the question at issue shall have the\nright to appoint one arbitrator on its own behalf.\n\nArticle IX.--When the court shall consist of an even number of\narbitrators, the nations concerned shall appoint an umpire, who shall\ndecide all questions upon which the arbitrators may disagree. If the\nnations interested fail to agree in the selection of an umpire, such\numpire shall be selected by the arbitrators already appointed.\n\nArticle X.--The appointment of an umpire, and his acceptance, shall\ntake place before the arbitrators enter upon the hearing of the\nquestion in dispute.\n\nArticle XI.--The umpire shall not act as a member of the court, but his\nduties and powers shall be limited to the decision of questions upon\nwhich the arbitrators shall be unable to agree.\n\nArticle XII.--Should any arbitrator, or an umpire, be prevented\nfrom serving by reason of death, resignation, or other cause, such\narbitrator or umpire shall be replaced by a substitute to be selected\nin the same manner in which the original arbitrator or umpire shall\nhave been chosen.\n\nArticle XIII.--The court shall hold its sessions at such place as the\nparties in interest may agree upon, and in case of disagreement or\nfailure to name a place the court itself may determine the location.\n\nArticle XIV.--When the court shall consist of several arbitrators, a\nmajority of the whole number may act notwithstanding the absence or\nwithdrawal of the minority. In such case the majority shall continue\nin the performance of their duties, until they shall have reached a\nfinal determination of the questions submitted for their consideration.\n\nArticle XV.--The decision of a majority of the whole number of\narbitrators shall be final both on the main and incidental issues,\nunless in the agreement to arbitrate it shall have been expressly\nprovided that unanimity is essential.\n\nArticle XVI.--The general expenses of arbitration proceedings shall\nbe paid in equal proportions by the governments that are parties\nthereto; but expenses incurred by either party in the preparation and\nprosecution of its case shall be defrayed by it individually.\n\nArticle XVII.--Whenever disputes arise the nations involved shall\nappoint courts of arbitration in accordance with the provisions of the\npreceding articles. Only by the mutual and free consent of all of such\nnations may those provisions be disregarded, and courts of arbitration\nappointed under different arrangements.\n\nArticle XVIII.--This treaty shall remain in force for twenty years from\nthe date of the exchange of ratifications. After the expiration of that\nperiod, it shall continue in operation until one of the contracting\nparties shall have notified all the others of its desire to terminate\nit. In the event of such notice the treaty shall continue obligatory\nupon the party giving it for at least one year thereafter, but the\nwithdrawal of one or more nations shall not invalidate the treaty with\nrespect to the other nations concerned.\n\nArticle XIX.--This treaty shall be ratified by all the nations\napproving it, according to their respective constitutional methods;\nand the ratifications shall be exchanged in the city of Washington on\nor before the first day of May, A.D. 1891. Any other nation may accept\nthis treaty and become a party thereto, by signing a copy thereof\nand depositing the same with the Government of the United States;\nwhereupon the said Government shall communicate this fact to the other\ncontracting parties.\n\n\nButler & Tanner, The Selwood Printing Works, Frome, and London.","title":"Pax mundi : $b A concise account of the progress of the movement for peace by means of arbitration, neutralization, international law and disarmament","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":34068}