At this point we may remark, that as far back as 1848, the same year that the Peace Congress was held in Brussels, Feb. 2nd, a treaty (the Guadaloupe-Hidalgo Treaty) was concluded between the United States of America and Mexico, containing a clause that a committee of arbitration shall settle, not only such differences as may arise directly concerning that treaty, but also shall, as the highest authority, adjudicate as far as possible all disputes which may arise between the high contracting States.[3] SWITZERLAND concluded, July 20th, 1864, a similar treaty with the HAWAIAN ISLANDS, and on October 30th with SAN SALVADOR.[4] Siam, whose monarch has given many proofs of sympathy for Oskar II., concluded a similar treaty, May 18th, 1868, with the UNITED KINGDOMS, and also with BELGIUM, Aug. 29th of the same year.[5] The CENTRAL and SOUTH AMERICAN REPUBLICS, HONDURAS, and THE UNITED STATES OF COLOMBIA did the same when on April 10th, 1882, they signed an arbitration treaty between themselves.[6] Since that time this vigorous idea has grown into the CENTRAL AND SOUTH AMERICAN ARBITRATION LEAGUE, and is now making good way towards being applied to the whole of America. The question now is, whether the VALUE OF PEACE TREATIES, in general or in particular, which are established between mutually distant small States can be estimated as highly as the good intention of their creation, which is habitually acknowledged to be good? Are they something to be depended upon? Will they be carried into effect? That depends in the first place upon what is meant by peace treaties. If reference is made to certain international settlements which the conquered, with hatred in their hearts, bleeding, upon their knees were FORCED to accept, we may at once grant that they imply no security for peace, but, on the contrary, are a fresh source of warlike complications. Thus, for example, the conclusion of peace which France was FORCED to sign at Versailles, Feb. 26th, 1871, and by which Alsace-Lorraine was torn from France, became a volcano which now for nineteen years has held the nations in suspense and unrest, and still threatens to ruin Europe. Neither would it be advisable to set much store on such obligations as the Western Powers undertook in the agreement which goes by the name of the NOVEMBER TREATY, to help us to defend the northern part of our peninsula against Russia; because a guaranteed neutrality implies in reality more danger than safety, if the guarantee is not mutual; that is, in this instance, if our eastern neighbour is not included in the guarantee; which is so far from being the case that the treaty, on the contrary, is a source of menace and distrust to him.[7]