would never dream of withdrawing from the courts of law to make the alleged injury a subject of claim against his Government. And it would greatly tend to the harmony of States and the peace of the world, if treaty stipulations were entered into in order to di minish the extent and restrain the frequency of such private claims on foreign Governments.

In the present condition of things, every Government is forced by private importunity into becoming too often the mere attorney of the claims of its citi zens against foreign Governments, in matters where the party aggrieved, if aggrieved, has ample means of redress before the tribunals, and where his grievance does not in the slightest degree affect the honor of his own Government.

These observations apply especially to incidents occurring in times of peace, in which times the acts of willful injury, done by any Government to foreigners sojourning under its treaty protection, are few in number compared with the injuries done to its own subjects or citizens, by any, the best administered Government either of Europe or America. On such occasions, the injured party not seldom exaggerates his case, and, by appeals to the sentiment of citizenship in his own country, seeks to force his Govern ment to interpose in his behalf, so as to obtain for him summary redress by diplomatic means in disregard of the local law.

Meanwhile, in times of war, the resident or sojourn ing foreigner is still more solicitous to be exempt from those ordinary consequences of military operations to

192

THE TREATY OF WASHINGTON.

which the inhabitants of the country are subject, and his solicitude is in proportion to the injuries to which he is thus exposed. This fact became conspicuous in the late war between Germany and France, and led to many complaints on the part of British subjects voluntarily residing at the seat of war, which constrained Lord Granville to disabuse them of the idea that armies in the field were to fold their arms and cease to act, lest by chance they might, in the heat of action, disturb the peace of min, or damage the prop erty or person, of some commorant Englishman.

Incidents of this nature are most of all frequent in times of civil war, especially in those countries of Spanish America, where militarism prevails, and the regular march of civil institutions is interrupted by military factions headed by generals, in contention. with one another, and with the constituted authorities of the Government.

For injuries thus done to its subjects, residing or sojourning in a foreign country, every Government possesses of course the right of war or of reprisals, which, in effect, is the same thing, being the adoption of force as a remedy in lieu of reason: a method of redress for private injuries, which, however common formerly, is contrary to all the prevalent notions of international justice in our day.

Hence, while it is the right and duty of every Gov. ernment to interpose on proper occasion, through its Ministers or Consuls, or otherwise, on the happening of any injury to its citizens or subjects abroad, yet the recurrence to force as a means of redress is admis

sible only in very rare and exceptional cases of ag gravated wrong committed by the authorities of the foreign Government.

The Government aggrieved in the person of its subject obtains, in many cases, the redress of the par ticular injury by more or less earnestness of diplomatic remonstrance.

If, however, redress be delayed for some sufficient cause to excuse the delay, and cases of alleged injury are thus accumulated, indemnity for the injuries done will be procured by diplomatic negotiation, if the injured Government be patient and persistent; for, much as there may be of evil in the world, and fre quently as nations depart on occasion from the rule of right, yet, after all, the sense of justice among men and the conscience of nations prevail to such extent that, in the end, in most cases, mere appeals to reason suffice to obtain voluntary reparation at the hands of the injuring Government.

Thus, without war, and without threat of war, the United States have obtained, by treaty, payment of indemnity, for injuries to citizens of the United States, from other Governments, such as France, Denmark, the Two Sicilies, Spain, with provision for the distri bution of such indemnity, among our citizens, by ourselves, through the agency of commissioners appointed under Act of Congress.

USEFULNESS OF MIXED COMMISSIONS.

In other controversies of this class between the United States and foreign Governments, where agree

N

ment as to the nature of the injury or amount of the indemnity could not be arrived at, mixed commis sions have been established by treaty in numerous instances, to judge and decide the questions at issue be tween the two contending Governments.

On three several occasions, within a brief period, the United States and Great Britain have had recourse to the international tribunal of a mixed commission for settlement of unliquidated claims of citi zens or subjects of one country against the Govern ment of the other, namely, by the Treaty of July 26, 1853; by that of July 1, 1863; and by the present Treaty of Washington. Other examples of this occur in our earlier history. And the United States have had treaties of a similar character with the Mexican Republic, with the Republic of New Granada, with that of the United States of Colombia, and with the Republics of Costa Rica, Venezuela, and Peru.

An eminent French publicist, M. Pradier Fodéré, observes:

"L'arbitrage, très-usité dans le moyen-âge, a été presque entièrement négligé dans les temps modernes; les exemples d'arbitrage offerts et acceptés sont deve nus de plus en plus rares, par l'expérience des inconvénients qui semblent être presque inséparables de ce moyen, ordinairement insuffisant par le défaut d'un pouvoir sanctionnateur. Lorsque les grandes puissances constituent un tribunal arbitral, ce n'est ordinaire ment que pour des objets d'intérêt secondaire."

As to the absence of any power to compel observ. ance of the award of an international tribunal, it may

suffice to say that the "pouvoir sanctionnateur" is in the treaty of arbitration, which nations are quite as likely to observe as they are to observe any other treaty. It is that question of good faith among nations upon which the peace of the world stands.

Undoubtedly, cases occur in which the international discord or debate turns on questions where the na tional honor or dignity is directly in play, and where the controversy becomes a matter of personal sentiment; and in such cases it may not be easy to ob tain an agreement to arbitrate. Such, indeed, was the view of Earl Russell, as we have already seen, with reference to the imputed want of due diligence of the British Government in the matter of the Alabama and the Florida. But the influence of time, which softens sensibilities and resentments, and the preva lence at length of the mutual desire of peace, may overcome even the most serious apparent obstacles to friendly arbitration, as the conduct of Great Brit ain in expressing her regret for the incidents of which the United States complained, and in referring the whole subject to the Tribunal at Geneva, seems to demonstrate.

OTHER FORMS OF ARBITRATION.

Many instances have occurred in the present centu ry of another form of arbitration, differing materially from mixed commissions, namely, submission to a single arbiter or tribunal, with complete authority to decide the subject of controversy.

Thus, in 1851, France and Spain referred to the ar