Mr. Dix to Mr. Seward

No. 282.]

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,

JOHN A. DIX.

Hon. William H. Seward, Secretary of State, Washington, D. C.

[Untitled]

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.