The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1846-03-02
THE INTELLlGENCER's ARGUMENT FOR
ARBITRATION

Ahbl NAHUM.
We said on Saturday that the Intslliseneers one ar
susmi at last brough Into the light to prove that the
Oregon controversy should be submitted TO arbitra-
ton, was"s moat extraordinary argument" Our
readers shall now see how far thai opinion 10
rect Sheer astonishment at the Intsgeneer's posi-
ton led u.s. we confess to read the latter portion OF
its article with unusual care And from this care
full examination we understand the Inteigencer to
assert and attempt to props thai our gopsrrsni in
.sing TO aeesds 10 Mr.. Paksnhas recent proposal Of
arbitration, HAS VIOLATED THE OBLIGATIONS OF In
rERsEriosAL LAwH!
"Iaporiani II trusr This, we really think should
he the caption Of the Intellgencers mart article in
support ofits somewhat startling proposition. For
truly this breaking Of the LaU Of nations, in the con-
duct ofa ntgOtiatiOn, is no joke 1t does not happen
every day. 1t should make a sensation. II
is quite new step in diplomacy. If wha, the In
tellgencer says be true, Mr.. Buchanan will hence.
forth take rank, not alone Of the ablest d.
pomstists whom this country has ever summoned to
her service, but he will be remembered great in
ventor and discoverer in diplomatic and urdcial sci
ence as we'll. For if the despatch in which he ill.,
forms MIR. Pakenham that our government cannot
accept the late British offer Of arbitration be in fact
breach Of the LaW Of nations, then we say without
hesitation that Mr.. Buchanan has found out the very
newest, quietest, cosisst, snuggest, land, to use
a homely Yankee phrase,) s.eksst mode OF breaking
the lao Of nation, that has ever yet Leen heard Of
1, is worth while perhaps, to run this idea out lit
tie and see how, upon the Inteligencers view, this
diplomatic discovery or invention Of Mr.. Buchanan,
will hereafter when it shall have become familiar TO
the pubciss, be set down in the text books of" Pub
lie Laru made easy for the use fsiudsns" If such
books hereafter shall be written in that rigorous
geometrcal fashion brought into USE upon such sub
ects, sometime since, by some Of the disciples Of
Bentham, the new discovery may, perhaps, take a
shape like this:
"PRosLEM"
"To break The lato Of nations psaeeably, and Without
are,pao?n
"SoLuTIos."
"Indite despatch declining to acoede to an offer
Of arbitration on question Of territory, which is
very important to your government and its title
which is very clear and has always been held he
So II you have yourself demonstrated your title;
and if the party offering arbitration DOES not claim to
hare anu title the breach Of International lao will be
the more manifest Then let your despatch props
Transmit the despatch to the minister Of the power
in controversy with your government, and the
solution is finished. The law Of nations is broken.
"a. Z. d.
an. B. The eorollari,s of this elegant demonsra
tion are numerous and important But we omit
them in this edition."
Before we go any further into the results Of the
Intellgencer's legal doctrine, let US that there
be no mistake in statement of its meaning. To
that end let the Tntegencer state its proposition in
its own words. They are words very seriously
written down. Perhaps we may become serious
, az we read them. They arc as follows:
awe need say more. we satisfied, TO con-
vince our readers that the Executive has departed
from the safe if not OBLIGATORY prescription qthe ta,o Of
nations in rejecting arbitration, twice proposed to it
| by the British government, and especally under the
circumstances which characterized the last offer and
rejection Of It."
| This shows we think, that we have not misstated
or mistaken the "lntelligencer's' proposition To
"depart from the prescription Of law" is, in plain
English. to "break law;" and SO the argument OF
the "Intelligencer'' is-just as we stated it to be-
| that this government should not have declined arbi-
raton, because TO decline arbitration was to break
the law Of nations. Our "solution" above given
therefore, squares vigorously with the "lntelligen-
GERS" theorem.
1t is rather awkward to set seriously about dis
proving this doctrine Of the "Intelligencer" But as
that jour nal really undertakes to bolster up it's
ton by citations from Vatel and Buranaaqu we
suppose It will be proper to give quotation or two
in answer. We promise, by way Of apology to our
readers for OBTAINING them on a matter quite too
plain to be argued, that quotations shall be few
and brief. Vattel though not great thinker, has
yet written work which is marked, in general, by
plain, practical good SENSE This characteristic ap-
pears perhaps, rather specially in his chapter 20,
the manner terminating the disputes bspeen nations,
from which the "Inelligenccr' has made it's quota
ton. In the opening Of that chapter vat,e contrasts
the duties of governments with the duties Of indvd
uals as to the maintenance Of their rights. He
says:
every one is permitted to recede from his rights
| to abandon Just subject Of complaint, or for.
get an injury. But the conductor Of a nation ia not
| in this respect free private person"
THE rights Of the nation benefits of
which the sovereign is only the administrator; and
he ought 10 dispose Of them farther than he has
to presume that the nation itself ,coud dispose Of them
In pursuance of this general view, he goes on to
enumerate what he calls the "mildest methods" e
terminating international disputes, and which, as
such, are recommended by the law Of nature,
not enforced by the lao Of nations This distinction
seems to have escaped the "Intelligencer."
Last among these "midest methods" vattel men
tons arbitr alton And he mentions it as to show
clearly that he knew its difficulties its dangers, its
limited applicability, and its liability to make mat
ters worse. He says; when sovereigns cannot
agree about their pretensions, and yet desire to
maintain or restore peace, they sometime, trust H.
decision Of their dispute, 70 arbiiratOrs, chosen by
common agreement" This is certainly srang,
} way of speaking, to describe a mode of actor
which, the "lnelligencsr has it, lie prescribed b,
public Law.
But vattel does not leave his opinion doubtful or
the point. He says, in the very same ehapr~:
an order now 10 see ho,o and 10 ,Dhai degree
nation is 10 hare rteoura or to submit TO these
rious rethods and ,cheh il oush 10 fr il is neces
.arv, first 10 distinguish between the that
sridsrh snd those that are dspbUd Does Il relst