when the victory is decided, both parties follow the conqueror, rejecting and fighting the vanquished, who lingers in sorrow behind.

"I was told, too, that instances often occur where the vanquished, spurred on by repeated neglects and insults, would, after a few days renew the attack, and with such desperation as gave him the victory. The whole company then follow their new master, as they did their former, and treat the newly vanquished, as they had done the other in the season of his humiliation.

"It is said that these powerful leaders feel not only a pride, but a responsibility of station, and will defend their haram from every foe, and the young colts from tigers, wolves, and wild dogs, which often assail them.

"There is a majesty and grandeur in the half wild horse of the pampas with his long mane and tail, waving like war banners in the wind, of which one cannot fully conceive from seeing him in his domesticated state. By taming him, he loses much of his original dignity."

Many of the advocates for the wars of nations, have argued from the hostilities of brutes and inferior animals, that it is the design of Providence, or the law of nature, that wars should exist among all the tribes of creation in this lower world. They seem to be willing that men should be on a level with tigers, wolves, and hawks, and even surpass them in ferocity and works of carnage, as much as they do in intellectual powers. It is, however, certain, that when brutes, once wild, become domesticated, they lose in a great degree their natural ferocity, or fighting propensity; and it may be hoped that civilization and Christianity will have as great an influence on the human character. Where these have had their proper effect, the propensity to war has been subdued.

But so long as men will imitate the brutes, and decide their controversies by violence, it is desirable that they should select for examples the most magnanimous and noble of the brutal tribes. The Horse confessedly holds a high rank; let then the example of the South American horses be duly regarded by the Kings and Chiefs of nations. Fighting, indeed, is at best a barbarous and brutal business; but there is something of comparative magnanimity in the horse Chiefsthey do not expose the lives of their followers in their quarrels, but do their own fighting. How much less disgraceful and injurious, and how much more noble is this, than the general conduct of Chiefs among men! In a horse battle, one or two at most are injured; these are the ones who make

the war, and who are principally interested in the result. Their subjects are not exposed to harm in the conflict; and when that is over, they quietly follow the conqueror, as their lawful sovereign; and he freely exposes himself to perils, and exerts his powers, to preserve them from injury. What a saving it would have been to mankind, if the quarrels of their Chiefs had been decided in the same manner! And how much beneath the HORSE has been the conduct of contending Princes. Instead of doing their own fighting, they have made dupes and slaves of their subjects, sacrificed their lives in quarrels, in which they had as little interest, as the common horses have in the quarrels of their Chieftains.

If the nations of Christendom will not regard the precepts of their religion, and if their rulers will still settle their controversies like brutes, by fighting, it is but reasonable that such modes of warfare should be adopted, as will be the least injurious to the nations which the rulers represent. Unnecessarily to sacrifice the lives of men is inhuman and wicked.

How happy it would have been for the people of England in what has been called "The Quarrel between the Two Roses," for the British crown, had the claimants possessed the magnan.inity of the South American horses, and decided their disputes in personal combat, with an understanding that the partisans of each should unite, and submit to the conqueror! How many myriads of lives would have been saved by this policy! Similar remarks might be made in respect to nine tenths of the wars which have occurred between the rulers of different nations. Yet such has been the delusion of mankind that they have regarded these worse than brutal wars, as the highway to glory!

"Jealousy and pride in the leaders" are said to cause the sanguinary battles of the horses. The same passions will account for the battles of men; and as men regard themselves as a higher order of beings than horses, they surely should not sink below them in the manner of settling their disputes.

He

It is presumed that the writer will not be suspected of a design to recommend single combat, as the best method for settling controversies between the Chiefs of our race. regards the principles of Christianity and civilization, by which good men of all ranks adjust their differences, as far preferable to fighting in any form. He cannot however but feel a kind of respect for the HORSE POLICY, when compared with the war policy of Kings and Statesmen. Its mischiefs must

be comparatively trifling, and it is far less beneath the dignity of rational beings. It is surely more noble and magnanimous in a ruler to hazard his own life to save his people from harm, than to sacrifice their lives and happiness to his own avarice, revenge, or ambition. The horse Chiefs are noble beings. compared with the Alexanders of our race, and far more worthy to have their names enrolled in the records of fame.

EXCHANGE OF MILITARY TROPHIES.

IN several numbers of this work we have made remarks on Trophies of Victory-the barbarity and ill effects of preserving them. We also mentioned the extraordinary exchange of captured standards, which took place during the French invasion of Spain, under a profession of friendship to the Spaniards. In the late valuable Address of Mr. Ladd to the Massachusetts Peace Society, he brought that event to view in the following manner:"There is one other circumstance, favorable to the cause of peace, which I mention, not for its magnitude, but for its singularity. I allude to the interchange of captured standards between France and Spain,—a bright spot in the vast expanse of blackness which, like a single lamp in a gloomy sepulchre, is remarkable not so much for its brilliancy, as for the contrast which makes darkness visible. O if all the nations of Christendom could be persuaded to follow this example,-if all the trophies of victory in the world should be heaped together in one vast pile and consumed, we might safely affirm, that never a burnt offering, since Abel's, has been so acceptable to the God of peace; and that such a peace offering is only surpassed by the sacrifice of the Prince of peace himself.”

This is strong language, but not too strong, if we only admit what the orator doubtless intended, that the proposed sacrifice be made with the true spirit of benevolence and peace. The more this subject shall be impartially examined, the more important the sacrifice must appear to enlightened men. For what can have a greater tendency to perpetuate a spirit of envy, arrogance, and malignity, than preserving memorials of past scenes of bloodshed and victory? and what can be more antichristian or inhuman?

When a bloody quarrel between two neighbors has been amicably settled, how careful should each of them be to avoid wounding the feelings of the other. If the victor, in this case, should preserve memorials of the advantage he gained in the battle, it would be justly regarded as a savage policy, directly tending to Vol. IV. No. 8.

31

future quarrels. If sanguinary conflicts have occurred between good men, can they, after reconciliation, reflect with pleasure on the past scenes? Will they not bewail them, and wish them buried in oblivion? Whatever advantages may have resulted to one person or people from fighting with another, the conflict, in itself considered, must be regarded as deplorable. Hence, every mode of exulting in such conflicts may justly be considered as antichristian, dishonorable, inhuman, and pernicious.

Should the rulers of Great Britain and the rulers of the United States, in the spirit of mutual benevolence, exchange all the trophies which each has taken from the other, it would be such a pledge of future tranquillity between the two governments, as probably would never be violated. If the same policy should be extended throughout the world, the nations might safely "beat their swords into ploughshares, and learn war no more.

How much more noble this policy would be, than that which has been for ages pursued! The popular policy of Christian governments has long been just what might naturally be expected of different bands of freebooters and pirates. Not only have they retained and exhibited trophies of homicide and rapine, but by constant preparations for war, the rulers of each nation proclaim to the world that they have no confidence in the rulers of other countries; that they regard them as unprincipled robbers, whose professions of friendship and treaties of peace afford no security; and that it is expected of them that they will violate all such professions and treaties as soon as they shall think it will be for their advantage to indulge their lawless propensities!

Yet this course of practical and unremitted slander of one government against another, is deemed the best policy for preserving peace. If Christian neighbors, in private life, were to adopt this policy for keeping peace between families, they might justly be suspected of mental derangement, were it not that insane persons seldom conduct in a manner so irrational.、 Whether the rulers of the several countries form their opinions of one another from what each knows of himself, I cannot affirm; but certain it is, that their want of mutual confidence brings unreasonable burdens on their subjects, and greatly exposes them to the calamities of

war.

EXERTIONS TO SAVE A SINGLE LIFE.

A recent newspaper relates the humane exertions of the people in the vicinity of Sacket's Harbor, to save a little boy who had been lost. About 500 people assembled for the search, which proved successful. "I was present," says the writer, "when the dear little fellow was presented to his now overjoyed

parents. It was a scene that overcame all present. We received the joyful and thankful looks of the parents, dropped the tear of joyous sympathy, and departed to our homes."

This account reminded me of an occurence which happened nearly half a century ago, in Plymouth, New Hampshire, while I was residing in that town. A child was lost on a sabbath morning by following a cow a small distance into woodland. Before noon a great part of the men and boys in the town were in search of the lost child. Not finding him on that day, the news spread like lightning into five or six neighboring towns; from these, great numbers came to aid in the humane search,-which was continued from day to day for nearly a week,-and till it was presumed the child was dead. Such was the general sympathy and concern, that men of every rank freely exerted themselves to save the life of one little child.

Such sympathies and exertions are honorable to human nature. What then should be the exertions of a people to prevent a war which may endanger the lives of a hundred thousand of our species? When the people of any country see their rulers inclined to engage in war, should they not unitedly express their concern, and exert their influence to prevent an inhuman conflict? But alas! what different beings are men under the delusion of warring passions, compared with what they are at other times! Thousands, who in time of peace would exert themselves to the utmost to save a single life, will give their consent to war, and exert their powers to effect the ruin of myriads of their fellow men; and if successful, they will for years exult in such savage acts of violence, as though the lives of men were of no more value than the lives of grasshoppers!

As an instance of humane exertions to save a single life, it has lately been reported in a newspaper, of Sir Isaac Coffin-a native of this country, who early engaged in the naval service of Britain, that, hearing a report on the ship's deck of a seaman overboard-"The Commander, clothes and hat on, with the end of a deep-line in his hand, jumped into the sea, swam to him, lashed the line to his person, and thereby saved his life." This may be regarded as proof that the Admiral was naturally of a humane disposition. How bewildering then is the influence of war and custom, on persons naturally humane and amiable! This same Admiral has probably many a time exposed himself to far greater dangers, and exerted all his powers to sink or blow up a ship of war, having on board 500 men, each of whom perhaps had a life of as much worth, as that of the seaman he so nobly saved. Probably, too, this Admiral has often exulted in the destruction of thousands of his brethren, destroyed in naval engagements. Must not that be an abominable custom, which can thus transform amiable men, and dispose them to act a part so barbarous and inhuman?