AVES ISLAND. 269 



of different nations, perhaps the most effective wouhl he that suggested 

 by the Emperor Paul of Kussia, in his famous letter written about two 

 thirds of a century since, viz: Tiiat in all cases of dispute between 

 nations the ministers of State of both, when they failed to adjust the 

 difficulty amicably, should be compelled to settle it by duel to the death 

 between themselves, and the people generally, often not interested, 

 should take no part, but remain at peace. 



If special reprisals were abolished, or regarded as obsolete, spoliations 

 and injustice would be more frequent, for the efficacy of the means of 

 redresss would be weakened, and a cogent preventive abandoned. De- 

 stroy this remedy, and if a nation persists in injustice and wrong, gen- 

 eral war is the only resort. But why should the government constrain 

 claimants to abandon a plain judicial remedy and adopt any other un- 

 certain recourse? 



Experience hath proved that the hope of effecting arbitraments is, 

 in most cases, illusory. Certainly the experience of the government 

 of the United States will not warrant the expectation of a speedy and 

 equitable and legal decision. Excepting the reference to the Emperor 

 of Kussia, under the treaty of Ghent between the United States and 

 Great Britain, not a solitary case of arbitration by this government has 

 ever resulted in a decision that has been satisfactory as just and rightful 

 to its citizens. The memorable award of the King of the Netherlands 

 with respect to the northeastern boundary, discarded by both parties 

 as. absurd, is one instance in point of the practical inefficacy of such 

 mode of adjustment. 



The General Armstong case, as to which the United States Court of 

 Claims has, since the decision of the then President of the French 

 ;^public, decided that the United States were responsible to the claim- 

 ants for having failed to enforce just reparation from Portugal, not- 

 withstanding the decision of the arbitrator that Portugal was not 

 amenable, is another illustration of the little value of such arbitration. 

 There are many other cases in the history of our government of like 

 character. 



Cases of joint commissioners to ascertain damages, where there were 

 many and divers claimants, under treaty stipulations, have occurred, 

 and even these have failed in effecting justice, as is proved in the case 

 of the Mexican commission, under the treaty of 1839, (in which ulti- 

 mate reference, in case of a difference in the joint commission, was had 

 to an umpire, a distinguished minister of a foreign power,) is an addi- 

 tional illustration of the worthlessness of such means of adjustment. 

 In this last case, the failure of the joint commission to do justice, and 

 even in some cases when aided by the distinguished umpire, is shown 

 by the fact that by the decision of the board of commissioners established 

 under the treaty of Guadaloupe Hidalgo, and in which proceedings the 

 United States and its citizens were the sole parties, thousands of dollars 

 were awarded to claimants under the treaty of 1839, to whom partial 

 justice only had been meted out by the joint commission ! 



In truth, the resort to arbitration, though a favorite means with 

 certain theoretic essayists and statesmen who indulge the fanciful idea 

 that they can better the rules and usages of the law of nations, sane- 



