to charts and maps; but this of course is not the only way of discovering what was really the question or the intention of the Treaty makers of 1846. And it must be presumed that the usual rules of (a) construction were applied to the solution of the difficulty presented by the case, such as reference to contemporaneous acts of the parties, documents and statements preceding and accompanying the execution of the Treaty, and the like criteria. IV. It is a duty, according to Hubner (7), the great champion of Neutrality, incumbent upon Neutrals to use every means in their power to procure the re-establishment of peace; and, of course, as much their duty to prevent, if possible, the breaking out of war. Galiani (c) is of a different opinion. The part of mediator, he thinks, may be accepted; but its acceptance is not obligatory by National or International Law. Future neutrality might be, he says, compromised, and the spite of one of the belligerents attracted by it. In short, that justice does not require, and prudence forbids an accepting, much more a seeking, of the office of mediator. It is impossible to lay down any certain rule upon a subject which must be greatly affected by the circumstances of each case. But I may be allowed to express a prefer southern portion of the mainland of British Columbia contains the choicest agricultural land in the province, possesses a fine climate, and is the bed of the lower portion of the great river Fraser, along the course of which river is one of the best routes into the pastoral and mining regions of the interior. Your readers are, therefore, prepared to appreciate the natural and profound disappointment of the people of Canada under the above circumstances, and more particularly in view of the fact that the valuable channels lost to them are of no present value to the foreign Power which has gained them, because the channels do not lead to any considerable portion of the territory of that foreign Power. The lost channels lead to Canadian waters, Canadian shores, and Canadian rivers." (a) See vol. ii. c. viii. (b) De la Saisie des Bâtimens neutres, t. i. pt. i. c. ii. s. 11. (c) Galiani, De' Doveri de' Principi Neutrali verso i Guerregianti, e di questi verso i Neutrali, c. ix. 162. ence for the manlier and more Christian principle of Hubner, to the low, and probably after all unsafe, expediency of Galiani. Much, however, must depend upon the subject of dispute, upon the character of the disputants, and upon the position and authority of the State which tenders its good offices. "In Protocol 23 to the Treaty of Paris, 1856, the Pleni"potentiaries do not hesitate to express, in the name of their "Governments, the wish that States, between which any "serious misunderstanding may arise, should, before appeal❝ing to arms, have recourse, as far as circumstances might "allow, to the good offices of a friendly Power." (d) Alas! for such wishes:-two most terrible wars have been waged in Europe and America since this solemn international record was made. Of that between the Northern United and the Confederate revolted Southern States of North America, it may be said, both that no American Ambassador subscribed the Protocol or the Treaty of Paris, and also that a civil war was not within the scope of the instrument; and yet this last position seems scarcely tenable, when the gigantic(e) proportions of that extraordinary conflict are con (d) Vol. i. App. x. p. 609. (e) "I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, in pursuance of the Act of Congress approved July 13, 1861, do hereby declare that the inhabitants of the said States of Georgia, South Carolina, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Alabama, Louisiana, Texas, Arkansas, Mississippi, and Florida (except the inhabitants of that part of the State of Virginia lying west of the Alleghany Mountains, and of such other parts of that State and the other States hereinbefore named as may maintain a loyal adhesion to the Union and the Constitution, or may be from time to time occupied and controlled by the forces of the United States engaged in the dispersion of said insurgents), are in a state of insurrection against the United States, and that all commercial intercourse between the same, and the inhabitants thereof, with the exceptions aforesaid, and the citizens of other States and other parts of the United States, is unlawful and will remain unlawful until such insurrection shall cease or has been suppressed; that all goods and chattels, wares and merchandise, coming from any of said States, with the exceptions aforesaid, into other parts of the United States, without the special licence and sidered: the number and magnitude of the revolted States, each as large, or larger, than most European kingdoms, armies in the field greater than, with few exceptions, had ever before been arrayed against each other, a blockade of unprecedented extent pressing most severely on the commercial welfare of the rest of the world; and above all, when it is remembered that these very United States, when they revolted from England (of whom they were, in 1773, as much the subjects, as in 1861 the Confederate States were of them), formed alliances, offensive and defensive, with European States against England. These were, however, in 1863, the "Resolutions of Congress upon foreign media"tion" (f): 66 "Whereas it appears from the diplomatic correspondence "submitted to Congress, that a proposition, friendly in form, "looking to pacification through foreign mediation, has been "made to the United States by the Emperor of the French, "and promptly declined by the President; and whereas the "idea of mediation or intervention in some shape may be regarded by foreign Governments as practicable, and such "Governments, through this misunderstanding, may be led to "proceedings tending to embarrass the friendly relations "which now exist between them and the United States; "and whereas, in order to remove for the future all chance "of misunderstanding on this subject, and to secure for the "United States the full enjoyment of that freedom from foreign interference which is one of the highest rights of 66 permission of the President, through the Secretary of the Treasury, or proceeding to any of said States, with the exceptions aforesaid, by land or water, together with the vessel or vehicle conveying the same, or conveying persons to or from the said States, with said exceptions, will be forfeited to the United States, and that, from and after fifteen days from the issuing of this Proclamation, all ships and vessels belonging, in whole or in part, to any citizen or inhabitant of any of said States, with said exceptions, found at sea or in any part of the United States, will be forfeited to the United States." August 16, 1861.-Mc Pherson's History of the Rebellion (1860–1865), p. 149. (f) Third Session, Thirty-seventh Congress. "independent States, it seems fit that Congress should "declare its convictions thereon. Therefore, resolved (the "House of Representatives concurring), that while, in times "past, the United States have sought and accepted the "friendly mediation or Arbitration of foreign Powers for "the pacific adjustment of International questions, where "the United States were the party of the one part and "some other sovereign Power the party of the other part; "and while they are not disposed to misconstrue the natural "and humane desire of foreign Powers to aid in arresting "domestic troubles, which, widening in their influence, have "afflicted other countries, especially in view of the circum"stance, deeply regretted by the American people, that the "blow aimed by the rebellion at the national life has fallen "heavily upon the labouring population of Europe; yet, "notwithstanding these things, Congress cannot hesitate to "regard every proposition of foreign interference in the "present contest as so far unreasonable and inadmissible, "that its only explanation will be found in a misunderstand"ing of the true state of the question, and of the real cha"racter of the War in which the Republic is engaged. "That the President be requested to transmit a copy of "these resolutions, through the Secretary of State, to the "Ministers of the United States in foreign countries, that "the declaration and protest herein set forth may be com"municated by them to the Government to which they are "accredited" (g). But if the nature of this War supplies an excuse for the non-application of the principle of International Arbitration, what is to be said of France and Prussia, whose accredited representatives did subscribe the Protocol and the Treaty, and who have since not only not resorted to, but instantly refused an Arbitration tendered by wholly (g) McPherson's History of the Rebellion (1860-1865), published at Washington, 1865, p. 346. disinterested and neutral States? The fact is, neither France nor Prussia would have submitted to a sentence of Arbitrators which decided against them. The tribunal is yet to be formed, before which independent States will plead in such a case, or submit, if they do plead, to the sentence. Alabama Claims-réclamations de l'Alabama— are-whether the result be or be not favourable to the institution of International Arbitration Courts-a very different thing (h). V. Lastly, it must be remembered that, as in the litigation of individuals, if one of the parties refuse to submit to the award of the Arbitrator, a compulsory process is put in motion against him; so, in the litigation of States, if the decision of the umpire State be resisted by the plaintiff or defendant State, war must be resorted to, in order to compel the obedience of the recusant to the decree; though the umpire cannot be compelled, even under these circumstances, to become a belligerent. VI. There remains a question of much importance :--May a State be compelled to make peace by THIRD Powers? The question applies to two hypotheses, not immaterially different. For the State may have accepted an Arbitration, and the award, which must, of course, be presumed to have been fairly conducted, may have been given against her; or the State may not be under this selfimposed obligation, and may have altogether refused Arbitration. In both cases the general principles of International Law answer the question in the negative, though with less confidence in the former than in the latter hypothesis. Bynkershoek (i) says, that it is as unjust to compel a State to make peace, as to compel it to make war. Such compulsion, he observes, was used by England, Sweden, and Holland, who bound themselves by Treaty, on the 23rd (h) Vide post, c. ix. on Neutrals. |