THE

ADVOCATE OF PEACE.

SEPTEMBER AND OCTOBER, 1859.

HOW TO DO AWAY WAR.

THE Cause of Peace is eminently practical, and proposes to accomplish its great and glorious purpose by means clearly feasible and rational. It aims to supersede war by putting something far better in its place. The War-system is now upheld only as a matter of supposed necessity for the settlement of disputes between nations, for the redress of their wrongs, and for the security of their respective rights and interests. These objects, we admit, must be attained in some way; and the chief question is, whether better means than the sword cannot be devised for securing them. Nations will of course retain their war-system until it is actually superseded by preferable methods of international justice; and this demand would be fairly met by Substitutes for War that should accomplish all its legitimate ends more effectually than the sword ever did or ever can. is the substance of our plan in few words - War superseded by better means of international justice and safety. We propose in its place a rational, peaceful, Christian process of justice between nations, analogous to what every civilized society has provided not only for individuals, but for all minor communities.

Here

Such, in substance, is our principle; and we contend that it may be applied to nations, as well as to individuals, with reasonable prospects of success. There are in the nature of the case no insuperable obstacles to such an application. Nations, regarded by all writers on international law as moral persons, are

confessedly under the same general obligations to each other as individuals in society; and we simply ask the former to settle their disputes in essentially the same way that the latter do theirs. How do individuals adjust their difficulties? Always in one of two ways either by amicable agreement between themselves, or by reference to a third party as umpire. There is no other way possible; and hence, if nations cannot or will not adjust their own difficulties, they must of necessity resort to some form of reference.

Here is no really new idea, but one as old as government or society itself. Common sense, the world over, has ever decided, that no man should be allowed to judge in his own case; and this principle is just as applicable to communities as to individuals. It underlies and pervades every process of justice in our courts of law. Every trial there is a reference; and no litigant is allowed to decide in his own case, but must submit to the judgment of impartial peers. Ought not governments to adjust their own differences in the same way? We ask them merely to adopt for themselves this simple, elementary principle of justice, with such modifications in the mode of applying it as their circumstances may require. It would be far better if they would settle every dispute by themselves; but, if they cannot, then let them submit the points in issue to arbiters. We urge them to make this their established method of adjustment, and to provide for it in their treaties by express agreement in advance. We would fain have them stipulate for it; and hence we call it Stipulated Arbitration. We propose that they incorporate in every treaty a clause binding the parties to settle whatever disputes may ever arise between them, by reference to umpires mutually chosen.

Now, what objection can there be to such an expedient? It relinquishes no right; it neither sacrifices nor endangers any interest; it contradicts no important principle in morals or politics; it requires no great or essential change in public opinion, but is well adapted to the present state of the world, and consistent alike with the precepts of Christianity, and the dictates of sound policy; it is level to the comprehension of all, and commends itself strongly to their good sense as safe and just, as clearly feasible, and likely to prove successful.

Nor would such an experiment be entirely novel; for the principles has for ages been occasionally tried with the best re

sults. "When sovereigns," says Vattel, a high authority on international law, "cannot agree, they sometimes trust the decision of their disputes to arbitrators. This method is very reasonable, and very conformable to the law of nations." He quotes a variety of examples, but dwells especially on that of Switzerland, and says, "the Swiss have had the precaution in all their alliances among themselves, and even in those they have contracted with the neighboring powers, to agree beforehand on the manner in which their disputes were to be submitted to arbitrators, in case they could not themselves adjust them in an amicable way. This wise precaution has not a little contributed to maintain the Helvetic Republic in that flourishing state which secures its liberty, and renders it respectable throughout Europe."

Occasional arbitration has ever been a part of our own foreign policy. A question of boundary between us and Great Britain we united in referring to the Emperor of Russia in 1822, a similar one between the same parties to the King of the Netherlands in 1827, and matters in controversy with Mexico to the King of Prussia in 1838, with success in each case to the extent of preventing an appeal to arms. Such is coming to be the usage of civilized nations; and we ask that this principle be made the ordinary method of settling all such disputes as cannot be satisfactorily adjusted by negotiation.

To such a measure we cannot well conceive any serious objection, but a host of arguments in its favor. Its general adoption would work a new and most glorious era in the world's progress; and fain would we ask the earnest attention, especially of the conductors of the Press, to the subject, and solicit their aid in forming such a public opinion as shall in time, perhaps ere long, constrain the more enlightened and influential nations of Christendom, like England, France, and the United States, to provide for the settlement of all difficulties in the last resort by some form of reference, and thus pave the way for a safe, gradual, entire abandonment of their present war-system, by the introduction of peaceful substitutes that shall, in the long run, far more effectually secure all its legitimate ends.

SAFETY OF PEACE PRINCIPLES.

THE efficacy of pacific principles is not confined to Christians. Even paganism has furnished occasional illustrations of their beauty and power. The Island of Loo-Choo in the Chinese sea, was visited in 1816 by the two war-ships which took Lord Amherst to China as ambassador from England. In order to procure supplies, and make some repairs, they anchored in a harbor of the island; and many of the natives immediately came on board, to whom the Captain, through an interpreter, stated whence the ships came, on what embassy sent, and why they had anchored there. Learning what things were wanted, they began forthwith to furnish them in great abundance, which they continued for six weeks, and then refused the slightest compensation.

Some of the crew being sick, were taken ashore to a temple as a temporary hospital, and there treated with the utmost tenderness. "Nothing," says Capt. Hall, "could be more interesting than to observe the care which the natives took of our sick men. They crowded round to assist them out of the boats, carried those confined to their beds all the way from the beach to the hospital, and gently supported those who had strength barely to walk; and when safely lodged, they were immediately supplied with eggs, milk, fowls and vegetables already cooked.

I was absent awhile on a survey of the coast; and on my return I was glad to find the sick men much recovered, and very grateful for the kindness of the natives. The best provisions had been brought to them every day; and when disposed to take exercise, they were sure to be accompanied by some of the natives, who helped them up the steep side of the hill behind the hospital, to a grassy spot on the summit, and having lighted pipes for them, remained patiently till the invalids wished to return. Never were sailors so caressed; and it was pleasing to observe our hardy seamen so much softened, that they laid aside for the time all the habitual roughness of their manners, and without any interference of the officers, treated the natives with the greatest consideration. Indeed, from the first hour of our visit, their amiable disposition and gentle manners won the good will of all; and, by a sort of tacit, spontaneous understanding, every one of our men treated them not only with kindness, but with entire confidence. The proud, haughty feeling of national superiority, so common

among British seamen, was here completely subdued by the kind and gentle manners of this pacific people. Though continually intermingled, no quarrel or complaint occurred during all our stay; but each succeeding day seemed to increase our mutual cordiality and friendship.

'We also inquired into their government; and while partaking of the general mildness, we deemed it highly efficient from the great order always maintained. The chiefs, though quite decided in giving their commands, were mild in manner and expression; and the people always obeyed them with the greatest alacrity and cheerfulness. Crimes were said to be very unfrequent; the people went entirely unarmed; and they always declared that they had no military weapons. We looked sharply for them, but could find none. Their behavior on seeing a musket fired, showed their ignorance of fire arms; and they invariably denied having any knowledge of war by experience or tradition,

The case of William Penn, however, is perhaps the fullest and fairest illustration of pacific principles in their bearing on the intercourse of nations. His colony, though an appendange to England, was to the Indians an independent State. They knew no power above or beyond that of Penn himself; and they treated his colony as another tribe or nation. Their king had himself expressly abandoned these Quakers entirely to their own reSources. "What!" said Charles II. to Penn on the eve of his departure, "venture yourself among the savages of North America! Why, man, what security have you, that you will not be in their war-kettle within two hours after setting your foot on their shores?" The best security in the world,' replied the man of peace. 'I doubt that, friend William; I have no idea any security against those cannibles, but a regiment of good soldiers with their muskets and bayonets; and I tell you beforehand, that, with all my good will for you and your family, to whom I am under obligations, I will not send a single soldier with you." 'I want none of thy soldiers; I depend on something better.'"Better!' on what?" On the Indians themselves; on their moral sense, and the promised protection of God.'

Such was the policy of Penn. He resolved to treat the Indians as the Gospel requires, and then rely for safety on the better principles of their nature, and the promises of God. He brought