New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1873-10-21
az JyrrRyA uONAL CODE.

AN INTERNATIONAL CODE.
Mr. David Dudley Field delivered an adj
dress before the Social Science Congress at
Norwich, England on the 9TH instant His
subiect was the scheme Of an International
Code. TO which it is well known that he has
devoted close study for many years. There
can be no question of the importance OF the
reform which Mr.. Field has undertaken In
many particulars modern society is still in a
condition of barbarism. There are rights
which have no sanction except within narrow
territorial limts Principles universally recog-
nized by all civilized nations have no force
beyond certain geographical boundaries.
Mans duties to man rest upon high moran
considerations yet the imaginary line
which separates adjoining Jurisdictions
practically susponds them. Ol course
this is great evil. and the remedy
in theory is so easy that one cannot think OF
the continuance of the evil without I'M
patience We have no doubt that an lnterna-
tional Code can be devised that will remove
some of the most glaring wrongs that are
9til tolerated between nations, and we are
not without hope of its adoption al an early
dav. II ought not to be difficult, for instance,
TO fix upon coinage that would pass current
everywhere, or TO come to an agreement
respectng copyright, railroads, telegraphs,
mails. patents, longitude, and certain points
of maritime law that are now unsettled lnc
reciprocal rights and duties OF lndlVluuals
might also be much more clearly denneh'
Thus far an International Code seems 10 DC
entirely practicable. and Mr.. Flelds sug-
cestions with regard to it are well considered
The larger part of his scheme, however, Is
nm international Tribunal of Arbitration Tor
the avoidance of war; and to illustrate now
easy il would be to establish such court he
cites the example of his own country. Here
we have thirty-seven States living at peace
under "A constitution which refers all their dli-
ferences to a Supreme Court, and Mr.. Field re-
| calls several instances in which disputes ABOUT
boundaries have been settled by that tribunal
But he forgets apparently that in 1861 the
| American principle u arbitration broke down
disastrously. If the States Of the Union have
always been at peace with one another, ex-
| cent dnring the four years of our great civil
! contest. il ia not because they have a Supreme
Court. but because they have II community OF
| interests and sentiments, and Il method OF
setting differences at the polls. There is no
| reason 10 suppose buhh any ht''Oi
deferred from going to war by the verdict OF
Court of Arbitration. Human nature must
suffer radical change before he who
holds the sword consents to forbear It's
use when ne has both provOcatiOn and
| opportunity. Whatever general agree
ment may be made between nations
| submission TO arbitration would be in every
! instance purely voluntary. The parties to the
quarrel would be free to choose whether they
would abide by the compact or not; and as
nations, it is said have no conscience, they
would be governed entirely by their own
convenience. The court would have no power
TO enforce its DEGREES. Nr. Field himself con-
fesses that there may be claims which no
self-resDocting nation would submit to any
arbitration :" and when you surrender TO the
claimant tho right of deciding whether he will
so to court or go to war, you surrender every
thing. The establishment of a fixed system
of arbitration might in time do something to
lessen the frequency of wars by educating the
public conscience; but it could not do much
mi