The Sun.
London, England, 1835-12-08 00:00:00

r

AMERICA.

From New York and Washingtoa Papers to the 19th
ult
(From the Morning Courier and Inquirer.)
f• It is alleged, and we call upon the Globe for information
Its to theStruth of that allegation, that a formal demand was
made upon the French Ministry, by Baron Rothschild, in his
capacity of Banker of the U.l4e,d States, for the indemnity
voted Udder the late Act.of the Freixii Legialatiom T. this
demand the Ministry a decided negative, unless -ncconi.
pang&l ,7v.ith an iapfanition of the offensive language used in
the message of 1835. In consequence of such refusal, Roths-
child is said to have inquired whether the reply was official
and final,. and received for answer that if his application was
to be considered official and authoriied, then the answer was
of.course also to be so considered, and that it was final as to
the intentions of the. French Government. Upon this Roths-
child-is said to have agreed that the demand should not be con-
sidered official, and that his communication to the President of
these facts should be of an unofficial nature, accompanied with
such suggestion§ for the Minister as would lead to an adjust-
ment of our difficulties.
" This being settled, Rothschild, it is said, addressed a jet-
tar to the President, advising him of what had transpired, and
assuring him unofficially from the French Ministry that if he
would cause his approval of Mr. Livingston's letter to be offi-
cially communicated to the. French Government it would be
considered an ample explanation of his message, and the in-
demnity be paid. To this General Jackson demurred, and
took, as we think, a very proper and dignified position. He
said, I will not ,use any such notice of my approval of Mr.
Livingston's letter to bt; given to France or any other Power.
The letter was official, and has been by me publicly approved.
If France will apprise me officiAlly that such approval when
communicated officially to that
.Government will be satisfac-
tory, and the indemnity in consequence be paid, I will not he-
sitate a moment to cause it to be done ; but I cannot take so
unusual a course without an official assurano that it will not
lie rejected and further explanation demanded.' "
The Washington Globe of the 13th ult., the official
organ of the American Government, thus comments on
the above statement ;

" THE TREATY.
"The United States Gazette of this morning avers that it
has learnt what follows :
" The French King and Ministers are certainly desirous of
having the business settled agreeably to the treaty, but they
must justify themselves to the Chambers and the nation.
They, however, neither desire nor expect any explanation
which can in the remotest degree reflect dishonour upon the
Government of the United States. It would be sufficient
that the President in his next message should express his
conviction that the French King's Government had acted in
good faith (and there can be no doubt of the fact), and to
express hii surprise that his former message had :2eeri con-
strued into a menace, as the very reverse was declared ppon
the face of it.'
" All this, however, can be nothing more than presump-
tion. Until the treaty has been executed—that is, until the
'indemnity, now universally acknowledged to be due, has been
paid—the President is not likely to be convinced that the
French King's Government has acted in good faith, and have
no right to ask or expect that he will express in his message
what he does not feel. The New Courier and Inquirer of
yesterday furnishes this story.'
" Here the Gazette gives a long cock-and. bull story from
Webb's paper about a formal demand upon the French
Ministry by Baron Rothschild, &c., &c. (who was never
authorised to make a demand, and never made one) and
about assurances, unofficially, from the French Ministry,
that if he would cause his approval of Mr. Livingston's
letter to be officially communicated it would be considered
an ample explanation,' &c., &c. There is, however, no-
thing in these speculations and inquiries of the New York
print worthy of reply ; but we may add a word in support of
what Mr. Walsh has said to the United States Gazette.
" This print asserts that the President should, before the
first movement towards a compliance with the treaty on the
part of the French King, express his conviction, that the
French King's Government had acted in good faith.' Now
let us see what the • good faith' of the French King obliges
him to do, according to his own solemn declaration, as a man
and a Magistrate. Here arc his words, signed with his own
name, upon the treaty :
" TRANSLATION OF THE RATIFICATION OF THE TREATY OF JULY
4, 1831, BY THE RING OF THE FRENCH.
" We, having found the above convention agreeable in all
and each of the dispositions therein contained, do declare by
ourselves, as well as by our heirs and successors, that it is
accepted, approved, ratified, and confirmed ; and by these
presents, signed by our hand, we do accept, approve, ratify,
and confirm it, promising, on the faith and word of a King, to
observe it, and to cause it to be observed inviolably, without
ever contravening it, or suffering it to be contravened, directly
or indirectly, for any cause or under any pretence whatever.
In faith whereof we have caused our seal to be affixed to these
pres..ents. Given at the Royal Palace, the thirty-first day of
August, one thousand eight hundred and thirtydone.
"'LOUIS PHILIPPE.
"'By the King, " HORACE SEBASTIANI.'
" Let us suppose that the first violation of this most sacred
and sovereign act was excusable, upon the ground that the
Chambers refused to appropriate; let us suppose that the delay
of the King, in the first instance, in bringing the subject be-
fore the Chambers, and subsequent postponement of the
fulfilment of M. Serurier's promise—that the subject should
be brought to the consideration of the new Chambers at the
earliest possible moment—fully accounted for ;—what is to
satisfy the world at large now, when the money is actually
voted, for the continued violation of that covenant on the part
of the King, which he has so solemnly vowed, on the word
of a King,' shall be inviolable ; shall be ' observed without
contravening, or suffering it to be contravened, directly or in-
directly, for any cause or under any pretence whatever ?'
" The world will say whether the King, who has the Presi-
dent's express declaration that' no menace was meant by the
message—whether the King, who has Mr. Livingston's several
letters, disavowing for his Government the false construction
put upon the message by the factious at home and abroad to
torture it into insult—whether the King, who has already
received through the same channels whence the message
reached him the President's official approbation of Mr. Li-
vingston's official disavowal, twice repeated in his commu-
nications, does not, in continuing to withhold the payment
of the indemnity, upon the plea that this point is not suffi-
ciently explained, contravene the treaty, not for any cause
which he is pledged not to allow to operate, but for a mere
pretence, which the terms of his ratification still more empha-
tically forbids.
" The public will be able to decide hereafter, if they cannot
now, what the promises and good faith of certain Kings arc
worth. They assuredly are very slow in fulfilling them, com-
pared with Republican Presidents. The ratification by the
President was as follows :
" ' Now, therefore, be it known that I, Andrew Jackson,
President of the United States of America, have caused the
said Convention to be made public, to the end that the same
and every clause and article thereto may be observed and ful-
filled with good faith by the United States and the citizens
thereof.'
" In consequence of this, the 'President and Congress at
once passed the necessary laws, giving France great privileges
and benefits under the treaty, which she has been enjoying
ever since, while not a dollar has yet been paid to us.
" Look on this pictnre and on this'---Republican faith and
promises in America contrasted with Kingly faith and pro-
mises in France."