TOPICS OF THE DAY.
ARBITRATION BETWEEN GREAT BRITAIN AND 'VIE UNITED STATES.
TILE suggestion that the differences between this country and the United States should be settled by a neutral power, chosen by the .disputants to arbitrate between them, arises from a humane feeling calculated to recommend it at first view, but its practicability is extremely doubtful.
It must not be forgotten, that in the question of the boundary between Maine and New Brunswick, the experiment of arbitration has been already tried without success. That question, too, be- longs to a class which of all others seems most fitted to be settled by arbitration. The treaty which professed to define the boun- dary between the United States and the British Provinces of North America, at the time of the recognition of the independence of the Union, undertook to describe a line drawn through a country never surveyed—not even explored. As might naturally have been anticipated, the actual forma- tion of the country was found on examination to differ mate- rially from the hypothetical form assumed by the framers of the treaty. The water-shed, along which the boundary-line was de- clared to pass, was found to have no existence. A literal execu- tion of the treaty is impossible. Here, if anywhere, was a case in which the disputants might refer to a third party to divide the dis- puted territory between them on equitable principles. Yet even here, the attempt to settle the controversy by arbitration has only left the question more embroiled.
This affords but slender encouragement to attempt to arrange the dispute arising out of the treatment of Mr. M'LEOD by arbi- tration. Leaving out of view, as irrelevant to the present ques- tion, whether this country has a right to demand the release of 311r. YPLEcon, or whether the State of New York has a right to try and (if declared guilty) to execute him, the actual position of the controversy between the two countries is as follows. The au- thorities of the State of New York apprehend M‘Lnora in their territory, and put him upon trial for an alleged offence, the scene of which is indisputably within their jurisdiction. The Govern- ment of Great Britain demands the liberation of M`Laon from the General Government of the United States, on the ground that, admitting Mr. M`Lzon to have been a party to the attack laid to his charge, it was made in the service of his country and with the sanction of its Government, and that he consequently is not liable for his share in it to any foreign jurisdiction. The General Government of the United States refuses to liberate APLEco, on the plea that he is in the hands of the penal judicature of New York, and that the Government at Washington has no jurisdiction in such matters. What is claimed by the British Government, and refused (or evaded) by the Government of the United States, is the personal safety of a British subject. His life is apparently in immediate danger. The American Government refuses to take any step to guarantee his safety until the question of right has been discussed. `While Lord PALMERSTON and Mr. WEBSTER are argu- ing the question, Mr. APLEcio may be hanged. This is not a ques- tion that can be referred to arbitration ; which, under existing cir- cumstances, would be neither more nor less than arranging what price we shall demand for M‘Lnou's life if it turn out that he has been put to death unjustly, while the man is yet alive and his country taking no steps-to save him.
In addition to the dubious utility of arbitration in any case, and ofits inapplicability in such a ease as that of 1VP.Laws, comes the question, where are we to get an arbiter in whose decision the dis- putants are likely to acquiesce ? Would England have confidence in the impartiality of the French Government if selected as umpire, with the alienation at present existing between the two countries ? Would America believe in the impartiality of the uncle of the British Queen ? Will Great Britain refer the decision of the question to the King of Holland, smarting under the loss of Bel- gium ? to the King of Denmark, with whom we are at odds about the Sound-dues ? or to the King of Sicily, with the brimstone con- troversy fresh in his recollection ? Will America refer the question to Austria or Prussia, Lord PALMERSTON'S coadjutors in maintain- ing the " independence and integrity of the Ottoman empire " ? or will either America or England repose confidence in the equivocal government of Russia ? There are no arbiters to be had free from suspicion of partiality ; and if there were, the dispute has reached that degree of exasperation, that the mere suggestion of any par- ticular power as arbiter by the one party, would immediately render that power an object of suspicion to the other.
The proposal to settle the differences between Great Britain and America by reference to an arbiter, smacks of honest HENRI Quatre's plan of a European tribunal for the decision of national controversies, and of ST. PIERRE'S project for a universal peace. While nations continue sufficiently cool and self-possessed to agree to arbitration, they are still sufficiently in their senses to be safe from war even without having recourse to that device. When they have reached that stage of hallucination in which there is eminent danger of their proceeding to blows, the weak self-imposed cheek of a reference to arbitration will be unable to restrain them.
The solution of the question whether we are to have war or not,
seems to depend almost entirely upon the new Government of the United States. The Boundary question—the only practical ques- tion at issue between the countries, leaving out of view the inci- dental case of M'Iszon—is sufficiently remote from the people of this country, who will decide in the name of their colonies, to enable them to estimate it at its real worth, perhaps to lead them to under- value it. An honest and intelligent American Government will find no difficulty in arranging the matter with Great Britain. But let a hair of 11PLEou's head be injured, and the indignation of this country will be uncontrollable. Then will be (for the question is not what reason would say there ought to be, but what passion will say there must be) a war between the two countries—an implacable war. The new President of the United States seems, from the little that is known of him in this country, a man of good intentions at least ; and the names of the members of his Cabinet afford a guarantee that his Government will be strong in talent, judgment, and energy. Were the scene of M`Lnou's trial in Boston, New York, or Bald-. inure, there would be no serious ground for apprehension ; but it lies in the district where the General Government of the United States wanted power to prevent the plunder of its arsenals by the Sympathizers, and where the life of MORGAN was taken by the freemasons for revealing some of their secrets, and where juries were found to acquit the murderers, in the face of the most con- vincing evidence.
Previous page
