CHAPTER VII DISARMAMENT National disarmament plays but a small part in the development of the political unity of the world. Yet the thought is closely associated with measures which have played a large part in that development, so that it is fitting to give place to the subject in mention of the forces which have enacted world law and are promoting world unity. The more the attention of the world is turned to hopeful conditions, the sooner will the deep longings of the nations for peace and mutual good will result in actual and efficient world legislation. It is to be expected that there will be found in this field, too, a germ of true world law, for it is to be expected that the world-will, when it has adequate means of expression and action, will forbid nations to carry arms, just as state-will, in our country, forbids private citizens to carry arms. Only twice is "disarmament" found in the de Martens list of many thousands of international communications. The first time it is in connection with a puny affair, and so ridiculous must it seem to a fighting statesman that he doubtless would omit reference to it altogether. But no beginning of disarmament is worthy of neglect, however humble it may be. So humble was this instance that probably the nations concerned have forgotten all about it, for they have not carried the idea further in their relations with each other, nor seemed to have learned from it. But under date of October 27, 1787, is an entry of a reciprocal declaration by France and Great Britain for a discontinuance of armaments. In the story following the entry it appears that there was an actual process of disarming. The documents in the case are as follows: Reciprocal declarations of the courts of London and of Versailles to bring to an end the armaments made on account of the troubles in Holland. DECLARATION The events which have taken place in the Republic of the United Provinces not appearing to leave any subject of discussion and still less of contest between the two courts, the undersigned are authorized to demand if the intention of his most Christian Majesty is to give effect to the notification made the 16th of the month of last September by the minister plenipotentiary of his most Christian Majesty who, announcing that they would give aid in Holland, has occasioned the naval armaments on the part of his Majesty; which armaments have been reciprocated. If the court of Versailles is disposed to explain itself regarding that matter and regarding its course adopted toward the republic in a manner in harmony with the desire shown on each side to preserve the good understanding between the two courts and always intended also, that there should not be any hostility on either side in consequence of what has transpired, his Majesty, always eager to concur with the friendly sentiments of his most Christian Majesty, will agree with him that the armaments and, in general, all preparations for war shall be discontinued on each side, and that the navies of the two nations shall be restored to a peace footing such as existed on January 1 of the present year. At Versailles, October 27, 1787 COUNTER DECLARATION The intention of his Majesty not being, and never having been, to interfere by force in the affairs of the Republic of the United Provinces, the communication made to the court of London the 16th of the last month by Mr. Barthélemy having had no other object than to announce to that court an intention, for which the motives no longer exist, especially since the king of Prussia has made part of his resolution, his Majesty has no difficulty in saying that he never wished to give any effect to the declaration above mentioned and that he cherishes no hostile intent relative to what has transpired in Holland. In consequence, his Majesty, desiring to concur with the sentiments of his Britannic Majesty for the preservation of the good feeling between the two courts, agrees with pleasure with his Britannic Majesty that the armaments and, in general, all preparations for war shall be discontinued on each side, and that the navies of the two nations shall be restored to a peace footing such as existed on January 1 of the present year. At Versailles, October 27, 1787 LE COMTE DE MONTMORIN In consequence of the declaration and the counter declaration exchanged this day, the undersigned, in the name of their respective sovereigns, agree that the armaments and, in general, all the preparations for war shall be discontinued on each side, and that the navies of the two nations shall be restored to a peace footing such as existed on January 1 of the present year. DORSET, WILLIAM EDEN At Versailles, October 27, 1787 LE COMTE DE MONTMORIN This precedent has marked historic value. It shows how disarmament can be agreed upon and actually accomplished. As a precedent it matters not that the occasion for arming had so dwindled in importance as not to be worth talking about, still less fighting over. Provided that the desire to disarm exists, and it is only a recognition of the common sense of every nation that it would not arm unless it felt compelled to do so, and it is also fully believed that national rights and honor will suffer no detriment by disarming, then here is a practical way of accomplishing the purpose, as far as any two nations are concerned. In this case each nation trusted the other and the trust was not abused. Each made practical surrender of itself to the honor of the other, not continuing the special preparations for fighting which it had made. Thus each nation in this case set a conspicuous example which shines by contrast with the policy of modern nations in persistently increasing their armaments, even though no war is in sight and though there is not a single one of all the nations on earth which it has reason to regard as Great Britain and France, at that time, had reason to regard each other, in consequence of the wars of their recent past and of the disposition and the preparation to fight which still remained. Yet, on this one particular matter, the desire to disarm being stronger than the desire to fight, in view of the worthlessness of the object of the contention, they courteously gave assurances of the entire absence of any hostile intent and laid aside the special arms which they had taken up. The desire and the act are the pertinent facts here, not the smallness of the subject of dispute. But this case is a precedent of far greater value than for two nations alone. It points the way to a new enactment of world law which is possible even to-day, while the process of world legislation is no further advanced than the stages of the Hague conference. Instead of one nation's giving assurance to one other, if every one were to give the assurance to the whole world besides, as represented in the conference, that it had no intent of hostility and that it did not regard any subject of difference it had with any other nation as worth fighting over, then it would not go a step beyond the steps taken by Great Britain and France over a century ago. On that assurance each of those two nations took the other at its word and laid down the special arms which it had taken up. Upon the assurance, upon honor, by each nation, that it had no hostile intent upon any other, the way would be open for a laying down of arms to at least a partial degree. If the will of the nations should take form in a declaration for a mutual progressive diminution of armaments, and each should honorably live up to its obligations, it would go no further than Great Britain and France went. To that extent, at least, this puny precedent is of large historic value. But the great precedent for disarmament is the agreement of 1817 between the United States and Great Britain not to arm on the Great Lakes. James Morton Callahan, writing in the Johns Hopkins series, says: "The first suggestion of the idea of making the Lake region neutral appears to have originated during the administration of President Washington, and with the President himself, as a means of preserving the peace at home." On May 6, 1794, John Randolph, secretary of state, wrote to John Jay, minister to Great Britain, that it would be well to consider whether in time of peace no troops. should be kept within a limited distance of the Lakes. After the second war between the United States and Great Britain the record says that Lord Castlereagh wanted to prevent a contest for naval ascendancy. He proposed free commercial navigation of the Lakes, if the United States government would not preserve or construct any fortification within a limited distance of the shores, or maintain or construct any armed vessel in the course of the rivers emptying into them. The first definite proposal to disarm came from Albert Gallatin, September 6, 1814. For several years the proposition was pending. Each of the combatants in the war just closed was suspicious of the other, and it seemed at times as if the project were wholly chimerical. Yet each nation saw its self-interest, and on April 28, 1817, a final agreement was reached between Charles Bagot, the minister of Great Britain to the United States, and Richard Rush, the secretary of state of the United States. The agreement made by these two men was as follows: 1. The naval forces henceforth to be maintained upon the Great Lakes shall be confined to the following vessels on each side: 2. On Lake Ontario one vessel, not to exceed 100 tons burden, carrying not more than 20 men and one 18-pound cannon. 3. On the upper lakes two vessels of the same burden and armed in a like way. 4. On Lake Champlain one vessel of like size and armament. 5. All other armed vessels to be at once dismantled, and no other vessel of war shall be built or armed along the St. Lawrence River or the Great Lakes. Each side kept this agreement in good faith and the dismantling of the war vessels followed promptly after the agreement was reached. Success may be attained in other cases if it could be in this. Here the two nations had just been at war with each other. Suspicion would have been plausible. Very naturally each side might have failed to carry out its agreement on the ground that the other could not be trusted. If the pessimistic view of the conduct of nations to each other under such circumstances is the sound one, then any disarmament is hopeless, no matter what agreements are reached. But the accomplished fact proved that nations will act honorably under such conditions and that it is safe to rely upon the national honor. If Great Britain and the United States could trust each other and disarm under those conditions, other nations, certainly, when they have not been at war for a long time, can follow the precedent. In 1812 the United States had forty-six forts along its Canadian frontier and Canada had about as many. Each nation had a considerable naval armament on the Lakes. The forts were destroyed, the ships were dismantled, and neither fort nor warship has ever been built since to vex the frontier on either side, and the peace has been kept absolutely. The rights of the two nations have been preserved. Neither has suffered the slightest encroachment upon its national honor, and an example has been set to all the world. It is a reasonable prediction that that example will yet be abundantly fruitful in the relations of the nations to each other. |