Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1818-04-14


veStigatlOn aud decisiono the Joint commissions.
There w,li, therefore, be 10 difficulty, in also
ipcludingin this poiut, as far rs itreates To irjn
tieS really caused By the order of the intend
ant OF New Orleans. in the convention To be
formed and signed, fire CURED by YOU; il beiug
his catholic majestS's desire to give CONTINUED
proof, 70 the United States OF his ftans ness,
good faith AID confederation. L NOW proceed
10 the claim for losses aU.i injuries committed
OF citizens of tho Uhued States by French
c. uiIers and tribunals, ~ the Caplure Of Amer.
icas vessels GA lie coasts OF Spain, aud their
condemnation III Spanish poits. fo,mius The
onj.rt ui the second pam OF this question: or
THAT embracing tEe POINTS OF HE second class,
M The order OF the SnIinviattra | have adcrt
Ell.
'rhis pant Of the question w;,s discussed in a
very luminous manner. IA the ovtes addressed
by his catholic n,sIcSiy'S gnvet nintnt To the A
meric3n MINISTERS on the ictI February and
5iL March, tSD5, aud N,iu aiV avafe. thai none.
PITY wasmade on the pnrt ofihe United States,
weakcnin. III the least tbe force of the princi
pies and the truth OF IL, ,dcts OH which Tie op-
position OF his catholic majesty to a responsive
lty tor those damages aud iu; urieS was "l"uud.
ell. Non will agree with me, Sir, that there is
no possibility otdccidiug, hya general lu,e, the
eAiest OF the responsibility of a nation, on
whose Goals ana ports a.:gr, ssiops have been
committed i'y ahcth,r against II thin dpartv, as
1t depends III great degree 81 the ',rcumStan.
ceS Ut tie case, and Tie particular >tipuiu:ions
binding on itatious
BH tic treaty betwcen Spain ard The United
exercise us good U.ticcS with the Offending
party, aud tn asd the claims Of the party az.
grir>ed. " Each party shall enieavcr (says
The treaty by all means IN their power to pro
tect and defend ail essCl, aud other enc cts be
longing 10 the citizens or SUBJECTS OF the ther
whlch shalt be within the extent ot their in
rlAdhtIon. by sea or by land, and shalt use all
their efforts TO recover aud Cause to be rcstor
ed 10 tue right owners. theirvesSels and effects
which may have been taken from them within
the extent of their said Jurisdiction, whether
they are al war or not wit: the power whose
subjects have taken possession OF the said eft.
fects.
On the part OF Spain this has be ~, done; aud
u her efforts have not produced the desired cf-
feet, the fault does not rest withhtr. Besides
the injuries done by French pfivateers on tile
coasts aud in the ports OF Spain, To American
ciilZens, have particular character, which re-
ileves The government Of Spain from all oblica.
ton 10 indcmnity them for those losses, even al
though such obligation had existed. The u.
States were not Ut war with France, couse-
quentlv their recourse, as the aggrieved par
~, was always open to the government and tri-
DunaiS OF the aggresSOr. Spain was then
IN alliance With France, and both were at war
with Great Britain. She, therefore, could not
prevent the privateers of her ally from entering
her ports, as they were not fitted out against
the Americans, but against the English. If
these privateerS, after going on their cruZe.
committed aggresSions on American vessels, on
pretence OF considering them or their cargOeS
as English. the Spanish gov ernmen ut co uld neth-
er foresee nor prevent it. The injuries were
alieaJS done before il was apprized of them
Neither WAS il la the Spanish ports where the
INJURY was completed, but in France by the
tribunals OF cessation, to which the Americans
appealed from the decision of the French con
suls residing in the ports of Spain. II was un-
questionahIy in France that the offence and
injury oris inaied, and in France were they con-
sumniated. How then can naturalization be
claimed OF Spain tor such injuries, and not of
France, who was the cause OF them, and the
compel IN
make due satisfaction, as they were her sub
Jects and had given the requisite bonds in her
courts Tor their good conduct in their cruzes'
You cannot bat he sensible, Sir, that according
toevery principle of reason * jushce, itwoulJ
evidently and UnquesiiOnably be INDUSTRIOUS to
claim these indemnificatioss of Spain as the
power existed then, and still does exist, which
caused the injuries here treatedof.
would go still further to show that by no
established principle of the law of nations
can Spain be considered responsible for such
ACCOMMODATIONS. not even indirectly, in case
france should refuse To make them. | wSuId
cite, among others, the case in which Sir w
Scott, Judge OF the high court of admiralty OF
Great Britain, decided, that prizes made by a
beiiigerent, and carried into the ports OF
power, its ally, and there condemned, are
justly and lawfully condemned, according TO
the law OF nations, and that the owners OF tue
property, prior to its condemnation, have no
longer a claim 10 il after condemnation has
taken place. From this and other decisions, il
follows, that the government, To whose subjects
the property condemned belonged, has no
ground TO bring forward complaints or claims
against the government of the country where
the prizes were made, because the condemna-
ton is conformable to the law of nations, the
sentence prOnouncing it is valid, and the au.
thority comdennipg the property legal and
proceeded according TO rule. This doctrine is
we'll known and acknowledged III the United
States, rs also the principle, that when nation
has employed lis good Offices, and taken such
nleans as are ia its power TO procure satisfac-
ton for the offence, and obtain compensation
tor the injuries committed on its coasts, and
in its ports, on a friendly or neutral nation il
is bound TO nothing more, although its good
Offices and endeavors may not have produced
the desired effect This principle was applied
by Mr.. Jefferson, In his letter OF the 5ih Sep
TENDER, 1898, to Mr. George Hammond. 1t is
also admitted by the best civilians, and a.
grees perfectly with the obligations of
Spain towards the Uuiied States, result
ing from the existing treaty between the
two nations. / mean however, in case Spain
had not been the ally of France at that period
because, even in that case, the principle have
just indicated would govern but being then
the ally of France in the war against Great
Britain, she might certainly employ, among
the exceptions eXemptng her from all respon
sblliiy ia tile case here treated of The principle
which served as the ground of Sir w. SCOTS
decision in the British admiralty court hat
do not consider ii necessary farther to illus
trate these legal objections Of the government
of Spain against the claim Of your government
Tor the aforesaid injuries, inasmuch this
capital exception attends it, namely, that salts
faction for those injuries was already made to
the United States by France. aud consequently
this affair is, and ought to be considered as
settled aud terminated This essential eXcep.
ton makes il supcriuons TO produce others,
siuce the obligation spoken OF. which was and
could only he but one, is thereby eVinced TO
have been extiuSuiShed. The French govern.
mGnt has positively declared, that " in the
special convention concluded between France
aud the United States, this point was settled /;
and that the said convention, by which this