, XXIV

the contending parties, in order to hasten the termination of the crisis. This brings parties into a condition of enmity, often accompanied by acts of violence, which fall short of actual war only by being more or less limited to a certain defined line of action or field of operation in conformity with the predominating social, political or moral conditions which the respective parties occupy in relation to each other. This intermediate condition between peace and war is the state of retortion or reprisal which is treated in the next chapter.

Peace. Con

international

§ 156. The laws of peace, which we have now The Laws of under consideration, give several remedies at hand frmation of to terminate differences among contending States. facts. In the first place, the principles of the laws of peace require that the facts which have caused the difference or contest must be clearly established. In the means which parties employ to establish these facts lies not only the test of the sincerity of their appeal to the laws of peace, but these proceedings form a genuine standard by which one may judge their respective national morality.

When Great Britain, with the magnanimity really worthy of a great Nation, acknowledged the misconceptions of facts which had led to the Transvaal war, and ceased the bloody contest with those few brave sons of het oude Vaderland, which the colossus could have easily crushed but never made to yield, her great statesmen never displayed a truer sense of the appreciation in which they hold inborn national-moral sense of justice and benevolence. Thus it was also in the case of the Alabama arbitration, when two great Nations avoided a bloody contest between kindred nationalities, by submitting to a sincere

§156.

investigation of facts, and proved that, when the International Spirit of Law has attained to a high moral standard, bloody conflicts between States are almost sure to be prevented. Alas! that history could not have recorded the same of the latest differences between two of the most civilized Nations of the earth, which, without any serious attempt at a peaceable solution, hurried two friendly neighbouring populations into a war, which filled Europe with consternation and dread. But fortunately again, the chariot of the conqueror was checked by the genuine appreciation of justice and benevolence, worthy of the great Sovereign under whose sceptre a great people has succeeded to combine tribal nationality with political unity, and through the moderation of the great statesman, who, while taking all responsibility on his great mind, yet never quailed in any difficulty, nor never overstepped the limits of his great task to venture on feats of ambition which would have thrust back the civilization of Europe for more than a century into a course of retrogression,leaving all the great and good minds, which have so zealously pleaded for the recognition of international morality, in profound despair of ever finding a clue to the problem of human destiny. And yet, it was the ever self-rectifying power of the Moral Law of Nature which, regaining its sway over the human mind, caused the good sense and moderation of leaders and people to prevail over the rapacious selfish inclinations of the animal nature of man (§ 3).

But to return to our subject, it must be kept in mind that, although the ascertaining of the facts which gave occasion to the difference is logically the first stage of process in every attempt to discuss a matter of dispute between reasonable beings, yet, unfortunately, facts cannot always

be proved to such an incontestable degree of certainty as to convince the party who is in the wrong, even presuming that he really and bond fide wishes to be convinced. And how seldom does this latter case happens; how often the so-called leading newspapers of the day stoop to become, maliciously, misleading chronicles of history, refusing all rectification that could remove the national prejudices to which it is their interest to pander. Thus, each party tries to establish such a statement of the facts complained of as would tell in its own favour, in which process almost invariably a one-sided subjective conception of the facts in dispute or their effects, is, with all the characteristics of an ex parte statement, substituted for actual occurrences which may in themselves have been very innocent acts, caused by force majeure or by some peculiar position of the parties. In this case an unprejudiced Court alone can clearly establish the undeniable facts and this indispensable requisite is to be found in the system of arbitration, which is treated in the next sections.

With regard to the moral obligation, resting on both parties, to ascertain the facts with moderation, Halleck says:

"The precepts of morality, as well as the principles of public law by which human society is governed, render it obligatory upon a State, before resorting to arms, to try every pacific mode of settling its disputes with others, whether such disputes arise from rights denied or injuries received. This moderation is the more necessary, as it not unfrequently happens that what is at first looked upon as an injury or an insult, is found, upon a more deliberate examination, to be a mistake rather than an act of malice or one designed to give offence. Moreover, the injury

Means of peaceable settlement of international disputes.

Amicable arrangement and compromise.

may result from the acts of inferior persons, which may not receive the approbation of their own Government. A little moderation and delay in such cases may bring to the offended party a just satisfaction; whereas rash and precipitate measures often lead to the shedding of much innocent blood. The moderation of the Government of the United States, in the case of the burning of the American steam-boat Caroline, 1837, by a British officer, led to an amicable adjustment of the difficulties arising from a violation of neutral territory, and saved both countries from the disasters of a bloody war. The moderation of the British Admiral in the affair at St. Juan Island is deserving of the highest praise." *

§ 157. When the facts are clearly established, it yet remains the moral duty as well as sound policy in the case of every State to try to settle differences in a peaceable manner before resorting to the decision of arms.

The means for peaceable settlements are:-10. Amicable arrangement or compromise between the two interested parties, without the direct or open interference from any other Government. 2°. Mediation or arbitration which takes place through the good offices of one or more friendly Power, to which may be added Conferences or Congresses on general political questions. We shall proceed to note in this and the next paragraph, these remedies of the laws of peace.

The solution of international questions through amicable arrangement or compromise may in some cases be a mere palliative postponing open rupture and war, as the main question is then often left undecided, yet the peace is preserved, though it be only for the moment, and at all events it is a marked proof of the spirit of moderation and of

* HALLECK. Intern, Law. Edit. Sir Sherston Baker. Vol. I. p. 413.

good faith which prevails in the respective counsels of the parties interested. *

The difference between an amicable arrangement and a compromise consists in this that the former indicates the settlement of the dispute by a mutual agreement to abandon the question, while a compromise implies an understanding arrived at, on some definite object of contention, by mutual concessions in the same sense as in a case in civil law. Thus a compromise partakes also of the nature of an amicable arrangement, but an amicable arrangement is not necessarily a compromise. For the amicable arrangement of disputes between Nations, a settlement by negotiation or compromise is not always involved or necessary.

"Amicable arrangement or accommodation, says Halleck, is where each party candidly examines the subject of dispute, with a sincere desire to preserve peace, by doing full justice to the other. In such cases, all doubtful points of etiquette will be yielded, and all uncertain and imaginary rights will be voluntarily renounced, in order to effect an amicable adjustment of differences. If no compromise of the right in dispute can be effected, the question will be avoided by the substitution of some other arrangement which may be mutually satisfactory. Such conduct is worthy of great and magnanimous Nations; weaker States seldom act with so much moderation.

An

example of amicable accommodation is found in the adjustment, by the treaty of Washington, in 1842, of the differences between the United States and Great Britain, with respect to the right claimed by the latter to visit the vessels of the former in search of slavers on the coast of Africa.

*CALVO. Le Droit Intern. Vol. I. Edition 1870. § 661, p. 785, HEFFTER, Droit, Intern. Trad. Bergson. § 107.