When in the fullness of time the hour had come for the new experiment in government among men, and it was the fate of the young and feeble colonies upon the coast of the North Atlantic to make the experiment, the Old World was full of the most dismal forebodings as to the result. The world was told that the experiment of democratic government meant the rule of the mob; that it might work well today, but that tomorrow the mob which had had but half a breakfast and could expect no dinner, would take control; and that the tyranny of the mob was worse than the tyranny of any individual.
The provisions of our constitutions guard against the tyranny of the mob, for at the time when men can deal in harmony with the principles of justice, when no selfish motive exists, when no excited passions exist, the constitution declares the great principles of justice—that no man shall be deprived of his property without due process of the law; that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation; that a person accused of crime shall be entitled to be informed of the charge against him, and given opportunity to defend himself. These provisions are essential to the preservation of liberty; and in the hands of judicial power rests the prerogative of declaring that whenever a congress, or a president, or a general, or whatever officer of whatever rank or dignity infringes, by a hair's breadth, upon any one of these great impersonal declarations of human rights, his acts cease to have official effect. The substitution of the divine quality of judgment, of the judicial quality in man, that quality which is bound by all that honor, by all that respect for human rights, by all that self-respect can accomplish, to lay aside all fear or favor and decide justly—the substitution of that quality for the fevered passions of the hour, for political favor and political hope, for political ambition, for personal selfishness and personal greed,—that is the contribution, the great contribution, of the American Constitution to the political science of the world.
If we pass to the field most ably and interestingly discussed in the paper to which we have just listened, to the field of international justice, we find the same principle less fully developed. I had almost said we find the need for the application of the same principle. All international law and international justice depend upon national law and national justice. No assemblage of nations can be expected to establish and maintain any higher standard in their dealings with one another than that which each maintains within its own borders. Just as the standard of justice and civilization in a community depends upon the individual character of the elements of the community, so the standard of justice among nations depends upon the standard established in each individual nation. Now, in the field of international arbitration we find a less fully developed sense of impersonal justice than we find in our municipal jurisprudence. Many years ago the Marquis of Salisbury, in a very able note, pointed out the extreme difficulty which lies in the way of international arbitration, arising from the difficulty of securing arbitrators who will act impartially, the trouble being that the world has not yet passed, in general, out of that stage of development in which men, even if they be arbitrators, act diplomatically instead of acting judicially. Arbitrations are too apt, therefore, to lead to diplomatic compromises rather than to judicial decisions. The remedy is not in abandoning the principle of arbitration, but it is by pressing on in every country and among all countries the quickened conscience, the higher standard, the judicial idea, the sense of the responsibility for impartial judgment in international affairs, as distinguished from the opportunity for negotiation in international affairs. We are too apt, both those who are despondent about the progress of civilization and those who are cynical about the unselfishness of mankind, to be impatient in our judgment, and to forget how long the life of a nation is, and how slow the processes of civilization are; how long it takes to change character and to educate whole peoples up to different standards of moral law. The principle of arbitration requires not merely declarations by governments, by congresses; it requires that education of the people of all civilized countries up to the same standard which now exists regarding the sacredness of judicial functions exercised in our courts.
It does not follow from this that the declaration of the principle of arbitration is not of value; it does not follow that governments and congresses are not advancing the cause of international justice; a principle recognized and declared always gains fresh strength and force; but for the accomplishment of the results which all of us desire in the substitution of arbitration for war, we must not be content with the declaration of principles; we must carry on an active campaign of universal national and international education, elevating the idea of the sacredness of the exercise of the judicial function in arbitration as well as in litigation between individuals. Still deeper than that goes the duty that rests upon us. Arbitration is but the method of preventing war after nations have been drawn up in opposition to each other with serious differences and excited feelings. The true, the permanent, and the final method of preventing war, is to educate the people who make war or peace, the people who control parliaments and congresses, to a love for justice and regard for the rights of others. So we come to the duty that rests here—not in the whims or the preference or the policy of a monarch, but here, in this university, in every institution of learning throughout the civilized world, with every teacher—the responsibility of determining the great issues of peace and war through the responsibility of teaching the people of our countries the love of justice, teaching them to seek the victories of peace rather than the glories of war; to regard more highly an act of justice and of generosity than even an act of courage or an act of heroism. In this great work of educating the people of the American republics to peace, there are no political divisions. As there is, and has been since the dawn of civilization, but one republic of science, but one republic of letters, let there be but one republic of the politics of peace, one great university of the professors and instructors of justice, of respect for human rights, of consideration for others, and of the peace of the world.
FOOTNOTE:
[3] Mr. Everett to Señor Osma, November 16, 1852.