Mr. Dix to Mr.
Seward
No. 282.]
Legation of the United States,
Paris,
November 4, 1868.
Sir: In my confidential dispatch, No. 255, of
the 7th August last, I expressed the opinion that the question of
disarmament was to become a very important one, and that it was already
occupying in a quiet way the deliberate consideration of the most
intelligent minds.
I recall this subject to your recollection for the purpose of referring
you to the remarks of Lord Stanley at the banquet at Liverpool, given to
Mr. Reverdy Johnson, as a confirmation of the views contained in my
dispatch. He denounced the whole system of armament by the great
European powers as destructive to their productive industry and a
scandal to their civilization. This bold and unreserved censure from so
eminent a source cannot fail to make a serious impression, and may
induce the governments of the principal states to come to an
understanding on this grave question, and to do voluntarily what will
otherwise be forced upon them at no very distant day.
In support of the views I expressed to you, I inclose a translation of an
article published last week in La France, a paper devoted to the
interests of the imperial government, and at the same time an advocate
of liberal reforms. It is supposed also to be strongly on the side of
the Empress, and sometimes the exponent of her views. The financial ruin
which the enormous military preparations of the great European states
are bringing upon them is very forcibly presented.
I have the honor to be, very respectfully, yours,
Hon. William H. Seward, Secretary of State, Washington, D. C.
[Untitled]
[From the La France of October 30,
1868.—Translation.]
We confess it with profound sadness, what is passing at this moment
is absolute folly. The continent cannot remain any longer in this
state of mistrust, by which the material and moral credit of the
governments are compromised, and both their finances and principles
ruined at the same time. Prussia had a magnificent amount of money
saved, and now she has arrived at a deficit; Austria and Italy are
striking examples of the disasters entailed by excessive military
expenditure; Turkey has long since been reduced to
[Page 455]
borrowing to be able to pay the
interest on her loans; Russia is struggling with expedients of paper
money, like Italy and Austria; France has been obliged to ask, this
year, 450,000,000 from the patriotism of the public, and if the
present situation is prolonged, who can affirm that this sacrifice
will be the last? Again, if it was only a question of money, the
great nations would perhaps be rich enough to pay for their security
at that price; but confidence is unsettled, opinion is excited, the
public is agitated, and, not knowing exactly to what the general
uneasiness is to be attributed, lays the responsibility on those who
govern, and accuses at the same time both the men and the
institutions. Let those who have charge of nations reflect, for the
straightforwardness of their intentions and the clearness of their
declarations do not suffice to calm the anxiety of interests and of
minds. Like them, public opinion desires peace; but we believe that
it wishes for tranquillity in another fashion than by optimist
phrases, which seem to be contradicted by exaggerated armaments. The
maxim of the ancient law, si vis pacem, para
bellum, frightens instead of reassuring it. Only on that
day will it be appeased when it shall see substituted, in the
relations of states, for that doctrine of distrust, this axiom of
true civilization: Si vis pacem, para
pacem.
