Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1825-10-14

queny the American merchant, should as lar as this
case dictates TO be observed also 10 the
fIench government Mr. Everett III his reoinder, has
met inns view OF the subject very conc)usivey, by the
SIMPLE statement that when the seizure was made there
was no senate of Hamburger that city was part of the
rrnch empire; no government of Hamburger existed,
anu therefore the present government not RESPONSE
bic Tor the seizure But will grant the Baron that
though there Senate of Hamburger IN essc, there
was one IN posse; that this republic there
legitimate government, latent but real; will farther
grant HIM that reclamation is be made by the foreign
ers anu neutras the seuate and by the be
made on France. This grant seould be done, To
make the entirely parallel; (athough as such it
was not cited by MIR. Evercttl ard such will add is
tue fact The Baron says, the foreigners and ncutrals,
on tie American principle, should have gone not 10 the
French government, bUt 10 the senate of Hamburg
They did go 10 the senate of Hamburgh And il was
that senate which made the application TO France; az
The hlng of the Netherlands doubtless will do after hn-
wing paid The claims of merchants What SAYS the
third article OF the convention of the Goth of Norem-
Der, 1873: The reclamations Of tie senate Of Ham
bHfSA' concerning the bank of that CITY, shall be the
object OF particular enton bcw cen the cornmis
SoheIs o. ms most christian majesty, and those Of the
city OF Hamburger The rcclamations were made then
by the senate on the French government the money
was PAID by the French government 10 the senate; of
course the foreigners and ucutals received the ndem
nty not o the French government but of the govern
ment of iiamburgh This then settles the Justice of
the American claims, the authority of a admit
&c Nageli But we may observe, that his EXceliencv
Shuns the ony question, which Mr. Everett intended to
raisc on the case of the bank of Hamburger. This
case was cited TO show, that the great powers of Europe
inc powers who seated his majesty of the Netherlands
on the throne and in those arrangements 10 which the
king of the Netherlands was party more highiy BE-
ngtted than any okcr IN UU Europe, shall present
ly show, did sanction the claim of the bank of Ham
burgh on Louis the Eighteenth, for money which Da-
vonst Narocons general, had pundered from the
ny n1Cp l,n
pass, OF easy comprehension quoted as sufficient
proof that the allied powers of Europe set up the doc
trne, that the legitimate monarch of France was bound
to refund the money stolen by general of the usuper
out OF the bank OF Hamburger at that time city of the
French empire.
The OF the cotton seized in the Grand Ductv of
Berg is still stronger though attempted be evaded by
the Baron in the same way. We have not, however,
space to detail it.
On the 18th July, Mr.. Everett addressed a note TO
the Baron de Nagcll by way of reoinder 1t is cons
derahy in detail; and drawn up with great precision
w ind 1t impossible however 10 introduce an ANALYSIS
OF IT, Some points in it we have already anticipated
To the arguments, Ly which the Baron attempted to es
cape the iOrce 81 precedent established by the allies
OF demanding indemnify OF France, Mr.. Everett thus
replies:
'Ihc example OF the ndcnities grant ell to f,rcinn
nations by France in the late treaties OF Paris is OBJ
Jcced to On the ground that the principle of indemnity
was not acknowledged by France; but that the Allied
Powers cook advantage OF their situation to force upon
her an arrangement, which in itself unjust and
which affords rule for the conduct of other nations
hen 1t Is considered that the government Of the Ne
thcr!ant!S, II lot an immediate party these treaties
Was intimately allied to the pow crs that concluded
them and has participated largely in the pecunarv be-
nets resulting from this particular provision, the obiec
ton appears somewhat extraordinary II is stated by
School, that this government has received from France
sixty millions OF fran to be employed in the cons rue
ton OF torrcsscs, equivalent for twenty two millions
granted rs indemnity, and more than eighty millions in
uftSts.C nrt'r,
mer authorities. The responsibility of the present
French Government for the of the former one is of
course, supposed in all these payments; and the 20
ycrnnent Of the Netherlands could not possibly have
consented toaccept these sums, unless had approved
the principle upon which thcy were paid. Whatever
osaion might be formed by different persons of the
character of these transactions, is vident that they
may be safely alleged authority against the parties
concerned or those that derived profit from them
Hut without insisting this point it may easily be
shown that the principle Of indemnity was, fact ad
United by France herself 1t is even admitted in the
passage cited in the answer foma speech of the Duke
de Richeleu, i'll the French House of Deputies The
Duke complains indeed that the principle was enforced
with too much severity. The ligor of it might have
been alevated by the equity and magnannity of the
sovcreigns. hat is this but saving, that the priuci-
pie in itself is UNJUST Again, hc rccolections retain
cd by the sOvcregs of the violence that had been cx
ercscdby France Within their territories prevented them
from giving way to those generous sentiments, which
they might otherwise have ntlugcd' Was this VIC
Icnce, then, the act of Louis the Egecnth' Unless
the French nation undcr LOUIS the Eighteenth is re-
sponsble for the conduct of the French nation unt
Napoleon, upon what ground could the violent proceed
ngs of the latter have irritaed the sovcrcgns against
his peaceful successor
About four months after the date of Mr. Evereu,s
letter reply to it sent by the Baron de NarclI
under date of November Ill; 1918; the main object of
which is to establish the point that the acts complained
OF were those of the government of France of that
of Holland. As this point though proEessedly waved
by the Baron i'll discussing The subject was nevertle-
less rcsoTed TO- in the of his present. as OF his
other letters, at every pinch of the American argument
Mr.. Everett immediately addressed short note to Ra-
ron de Nagel with view of coming 20 some explicit
understanding upon the facts After the lapse Of a
month an answer was returned by the Baron in tone
of GscOnteD complaining, that Mr. Everett had writ
ten his last letter, week only after receiving that off
tbc Baron, TO which 1t Is a reply; and COnsequcniv
without time to have sent that Of the Baron TO Aneri-
and the instructions of the American TO-
the Baron supposed was in all cases done
After this complaint he enters very briefly into part
Of the argument the precise nature of the acts TO
time and form, which the American claim rests.
rs this time may be well supposed, the subject /
had become ~ little PerPIcxed. With view TO the |
isentangng of it, Mr.. Everett prepared elaborate