of its members-nothing that a monarchy and a democracy would hesitate to submit to the arbitration of a crowned head of a kingdom, or an uncrowned head of a republic. Who dreams of submitting to arbitration, whether a nation shall have a monarchical or a republican form of government, or surrender its independence, or be interfered with in any manner whatever, where others are not concerned? Certainly, not your memorialists! They merely propose, that such points as are proper subjects for international arbitration, be referred to a tribunal of the kind already designated, instead of a temporary, individual arbitrator, or the sword. Where the danger in this? the more especially, as the parties would only be bound in honor to regard decisions manifestly just. This provision would tend to the production of righteous decisions on the part of the tribunal, inasmuch as unrighteous ones, under such circumstances, would effect nothing but the disgrace of that body itself. With far greater propriety, therefore, might the plea of danger be made, in submitting the disputes of individuals to courts of justice, whereby they are compelled to regard decisions, than in this case of nations. The decisions of the proposed tribunal would evidently have all the efficacy they ought to have, and no more. They would have only a moral influence, and that just in proportion to their rectitude. Thus, while national independence would remain inviolate, the fulfilment of national obligation would be secured.

Your memorialists are not a little surprised, that the project of Henry IV should be seriously compared with the plan by them recommended, and be pronounced far superior in point of practical wisdom. Whether a scheme to revolutionize all Christendom; to subjugate and partition the dominant power of the day; to change the boundaries of states, and apply to them the leveling principle of agrarianism; thereby interfering with the sovereignty and other primary rights of nations, and introducing innovations and changes without number; is more evincive of practical wisdom, than a proposition to draw out the law of nations into the form of a code, and to reduce the present practice of nations with regard to arbitration to an orderly system, as proposed by your memorialists, is for your honorable body to decide.

Nor less are your memorialists surprised, that it should be asserted, that the famous Amphictyonic Conucil "had no effect whatever in healing the dissensions of the Grecian commonwealths." In relation to this Council, Rees says, "Their determinations were received with the greatest veneration, and were even held sacred and inviolable." Rollin says, "The authority of the Amphictyons had always been of great weight in Greece; but it began to decline exceedingly, from the moment they condescended to admit Philip of Macedon into their body." Just as your memorialists would have it. A case more to their

purpose could not be conceived. The decisions of that Council were efficacious exactly in proportion to their equity; and they lost their influence when the Macedonian began to pervert it.

The assertion, that the Germanic Diet accomplished nothing for the pacification of the states of Germany, is equally at variance with history. For three hundred years, the German empire had been the theatre of barbarism and anarchy; when Maximilian I accomplished what his predecessors had so long attempted in vain. "In 1495," says the Encyclopædia Americana, "he had put an end to the internal troubles and violence, by the perpetual peace of the empire, decreed by the Diet of Worms."

Your memorialists would here bring into view the auspicious results emanating from the system of arbitration adopted by the Helvetic Union. "The Swiss," says Vattel, "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 adjust them in an amicable manner. 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." The same writer, in allusion to international arbitration, &c., says, "In order to put in practice any of these methods, it is necessary to speak with each other, and to confer together, Conferences and congresses are then a way of reconciliation which the law of nature recommends to nations, as proper to put an amicable period to their differences." Thus is the idea of a Congress of Nations sanctioned by the law of nations. Not only so: the practice of nations sanctions it. From 1644, to 1814, there were more than thirty convocations of temporary Congresses of Nations, embracing various states of Europe. "Wars have been terminated by them; conflicting jurisdictions have been settled; boundaries have been ascertained; commercial conventions have been formed; and, in various ways, the interests of friendly intercourse have been promoted." Your memorialists, therefore, in proposing the establishment of a Congress of Nations, are far from acting the part of visionary innovators; they merely propose an improvement of a present international regulation. They propose, that, instead of temporary congresses, convened after war has done its bloody work, there be a permanent Congress to prevent war-a body of sages and philanthropists always ready, to whom to refer disputes before war, rather than after it. This is the sum of the whole matter. And what is there visionary or impracticable in it? What is there in it that is not decidedly better than the present state of things? This improvement in international jurisprudence, this

advance upon preceding ages, is due from this very generation to the enlightened period in which we live. Your memorialists can but think, that the venerable Franklin had some such plan in view when he said, "We daily make great improvements in natural, there is one I wish to see in moral, philosophy; the discovery of a plan that would induce and oblige nations to settle their disputes without first cutting one another's throats." Something of the kind the illustrious Jefferson seems likewise to have had in view, when, in speaking of the inefficiency of war in redressing wrong, and of its multiplying, instead of indemnifying, losses, he exclaimed, "These truths are palpable, and must, in the progress of time, have their influence on the minds and conduct of nations!" And in authorizing his name to be registered among the names of the members of the Massachusetts Peace Society, he gave still stronger testimony in favor of pacific principles and measures.

Before coming to a close, your memorialists would introduce to the notice of your honorable body what will no doubt, ere-long, be presented in an official form; relating as it does, directly to the subject now under consideration, and having a most important bearing on it.

The Legislature of the noble and enlightened State of Massachusetts have recently adopted a report, and sundry resolutions of a committee of that body, by a unanimous vote in the House, and with only five dissenting votes in the Senate, and consequently without distinction of sect or party, in which they entirely coincide with your memorialists in their views.

[As this part of the memorial, consisting of extracts from the abovementioned report, and the resolutions appended to it, has appeared in a previous article, it is unnecessary to repeat it.]

Thus, not only your memorialists, but virtually whole States, already call on your honorable body to adopt the system of pacification designated in this memorial. Nay, your memorialists doubt not, that could the universal sentiment be ascertained, nine-tenths of the human race wonld be found to accord with these views. Your memorialists, therefore, present this document to your honorable body, as the representation of the views and wishes of their race, in regard to this great subject; and in the nameof human nature they implore you to grant these requests.

Your memorialists fear they have already trespassed on the patience of your honorable body, by their very extended remarks. They trust, however, that the immense importance of the subject will serve as a sufficient excuse for the great length of this memorial. And they only further hope, that your honorable body will give it attention according to that importance. Should this be the case, they are under no apprehensions with regard to the result. And your memorialists, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

No. 11.

Third Petition of the American Peace Society.

To the Honorable Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, 1839-40.

The undersigned, President and Executive Committee of the American Peace Society, by the authority, and in behalf of that Society, present the following petition:

Your petitioners, being more persuaded than ever, that the frequency of war may be lessened, its sufferings abated, and the custom of war finally banished from the community of free and enlightened nations, and a more equitable, safe and cheap method for settling international disputes substituted in its place, would once more call the attention of your honorable bodies to that most important subject,—a Congress of Nations. They have nothing to add to the unanswerable arguments of former petitions on this subject, and they lament that the short duration of the last session of Congress prevented the Committee on Foreign Affairs, to whom their own, and many other petitions on the subject were referred, from making a report on the answer of your petitioners, and others from different parts of the Union, to the objections to this great and benevolent enterprise, which were brought against it by the report of the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the preceding session of Congress. The Committee were probably so much occupied with the many important topics brought before them during the short session of Congress, that they had not time thoroughly to examine the subject. If they had examined it, they probably would have come to the same result with the Legislature of Massachusetts, who two years ago almost unanimously recommended the subject to the attention of Congress, by a report and resolves sent on last year to the President of the United States, which want of time probably prevented him from laying before Congress.

The question of our north-eastern boundary is still unsettled and is likely to remain so for years to come; and may bring on a war between two of the most enlightened nations in the world,—a war, which so far from settling the question, would only encumber it with new difficulties to be settled by another umpire, whose decision would be as liable to be rejected as the last; and thus it may continue to be the bone of contention between the two countries, until they see the futility of expecting an individual, however learned and discriminating, to settle a question which may require the united wisdom of a whole bench of judges, long used to weigh conflicting evidences in the scales of justice; and, from their exalted situation, elevated above all national and

political feelings, able not only to give a right decision, but to make that decision plain and satisfactory to the parties concerned, and to the world at large. The opinion has been expressed by some of the exgovernors of the State of Maine, that had such a Court of Nations as that which we contemplate existed, the difficulties of our north-eastern boundary would long ago have been settled to our entire satisfaction.

The plan proposed by your petitioners is two-fold. One part consists of a Congress of Ambassadors from all those Christian and civilized nations who may choose to be represented there, for the purpose of settling such points of the law of nations, as they may be able to agree upon, in a mutual treaty between all the powers represented, which, like any other treaty, might be ratified or rejected by the nations concerned. The other part is the organization, by that Congress, of a Court of Nations for the adjustment of such cases of international difficulties as might be brought before it by the mutual consent of any two or more conflicting nations, without resort to arms. This is the outline of our plan. The details may be filled up by the wisdom of the present and succeeding ages. The whole plan may be adopted, or either part of it; for one is not necessarily dependent on the other. They may exist separately, or both together, as should be thought best. But the two great objects should never be lost sight of, viz., 1st. The settlement of the principles of international law by compact and agreement after mature deliberation; leaving them no longer to be decided by the conflicting opinions of unauthorized writers on the law of nations. 2d. Some better method than the sword, or occasional arbitration, for the settlement of the disputes of Christian and civilized nations; such as a high Court composed of the most celebrated civilians and jurisconsults of the countries represented in a Congress of Nations. The plan is so simple, and the evils to be remedied so great, that the only difficulty seems to be in making men believe that so great a cure can be performed by such simple means, which, after all, is but a step or two in the increasing practice of arbitrating international difficulties.

This subject has been much discussed in New England and New York; and, where best understood, it is most appreciated. It has also received the attention of the British public, and has been agitated on the continent of Europe. Should the government of these United States invite Great Britain and France to join in this great and benevolent enterprise, and these three powers only should commence the work, most of the other powers of Europe and the South American republics would soon follow; and a new era would dawn on the world: right would take the place of might; wars, in a great measure, would cease in Christendom; and peace and happiness would generally pervade the world.