The Madison daily leader. [volume] (Madison, S.D.) 1890-current, 1896-08-21
Lord Chief Justice Russells Ad-
dress Before the American
Bar Association.
International Law Has Never
Been COdified, Nor Should
Be at Present.
Lord Russell Opposed to a Per-
.manent Court of Arbitration.
His Reasons.

SARATOGA, N. Y, Aug. 21.-The
event of the convention of the National
Bar association was the address ON in
ternatiOnal law by Lord Chief Justice
Russell of Great Britain. There was
large attendance Of spectators in antici-
patton of the event. The address was
not long, and was, of course, delivered
without oratorical effect, though with
great earnestness.
Lord Russell defined international law
as the sum of the rules or usages which
civilized states have agreed shall be
binding upon them in their dealings
with one another. These rules we do not
find recorded in clear language-there
is no international code. We look for
them in the long records of customary
action in settled precedents i'll treaties
affirming principles; i'll state docu-
ments; in declarations of nations in
conclave-which draw to themselves
the adhesions of other nations; i'll dec
larations of text writers of authority
generally accepted, and, lastly and with
most precision, in the field which they
cover, in the authoritive decisions of
prize courts. From these sources we
get the evidence which determines
whether or not a particular canon of
conduct, or particular principle, has
or has not received the express or inn
piled assent of nations. Although in
ternational law remained in this uncer-
tain state Lord Russell said he was not
an advocate of its codifcation at pres
ent.
To codify it would be to crystalline
it ; uncodified it is more flexible and
more easily assimilates new rules
While agreeing, therefore, that inde-
y terminate points should be determined
and that we should aim at raising the
ethical standard, do not think we have
yet reached the point at which codifca-
tion is practicable, or if practicable
would be public good.
The United States Leader.
Lord Russell next reviewed the more
humane tendencies in the conduct of
war between nations and summed up
the latter day efforts in the direction of
international arbitration, in which he
acknowledged the United States q
leader.
The are many instances also of the
introduction of arbitration clauses into
treaties. Here again the United, States
appears in the van. Among the first of
such treaties-if not the very frst-is
is the Guadaloape- Hidalgo treaty of
lS4S between the United States and
Mexico. Since that date many other
countries have followed this example
These facts, dull as is the recital of
them, are full of interest and hope for
the future.
But are we thence to conclude that
the millennium of peace has arrived
that the dove has returned to the ark,
sure sign that the waters of interna-
tional strife have permanently subsidized
lam not sanguine enough to lay this
flattering unctiOn to my soul. Unbri-
died ambition-thirst for wide dominion
pride of power still hold sway, al
though l believe with lessened force
and in some sort under the restraint of
the healthier opinion of the world
But further, friend as am of peace,
would yet affirm that there may be
even greater calamity than war-the
dishonor of nation, the triumph Of an
unrighteous cause, the perpetuation of
hopeless and debasing tyranny.
1t behooves, then, all who are friends
of peace and advocates Of arbitration
to recognize the difficulties of the ques.
ton, to examine and meet these Difficult.
ties, and to discriminate between the
cases in which friendly arbitration is
and in which it may not be, practically
possible.
Some Things Cannot Be Arbitrated.
There are differences to which, even
as between individuals, arbitration il
inapplicable-subjects which find thei,
counterpart in the affairs Of nations
Men do not arbitrate where character is
at stake, nor will any self-respectinp
nation readily arbitrate Oh questions
touching its national independence o,
affecting it's honor. Again, nation
may agree to arbitrate and then re-
pudiate its agreement. Who is to coerce
it? Or, having gone to arbitration anG
been worsted it may decline to be bound
by the award. Who is to compel it?
These considerations seem to me tt
justify two conclusions: The first i.
that arbitration will not cover the Who'll,
field of international controversy ant
the second that unless and until tn,
great powers of the world, in league
bind themselves to coerce recalcitran
member of the family of nations, W,
have still to face the more than possibl,
disregard by powerful states of tn,
obligations of good faith and of justice
The scheme of such q combination ha
been advocated. but the signs of it
accomplishment are absent.