Phenix gazette. [volume] (Alexandria [D.C.]) 1825-1833, 1826-10-30

State would be entitled to privileges over ano-
Their, would be a direct violation Of the consti-
tuition of the United States, which expressly de-
%clares, that 'no preference shall be given by any
regulation of commcrce or revenue, TO the ports
of one State, over those Of another"
The pretension therefore Sc, up, by the French
government, is wholly inadmisslble, and can
only be considered as a mere subterfuge, to "a
void the payment of a Just debt.
During the years 1909 anc 1910, a number
Of vessels sailed from differ ent ports Of the u
nited States, to St. Sebastian, and other ports
in Spain, bordering upon the Bay of Biscay.
The vessels were all furnished with every
document necessary to prove that they, together
with their cargoes, were bona fde the property
of citizens of the United States. In fact, the
National character Of this property, does not
appear TO have been called in question.
The first Of these vessels that arrived, were
admitted to all entry, and permission given to
dispose of their cargoes, and to return to the Y.
States. Those, however, which cam alter
wards, shared a different fate.
Thirty-eight were seized by order Of Napo-
leon, and transported to 3%ayonne, in France,
where both vessels and cargoes were disposed
of by public auction; and the proceeds paid IN
to the caisse advertisement at Paris.
This property was never libelled, nor any .Ju-
dicial proceedings instituted, in relation to 1t.
1t was evidently detained, merely waiting the
issue Of political events between the United
States and France. That this is the ligh: in
which the subject was viewed by the late gov
eminent of France, is evident from the follow
ing Observation-Disclosures cargoes produced at
public auction, fifteen million five hundred and
thirty thousand francs; the Continental duty
which was levied and paid into the French
Custom House at Bayonne, was eight million,
two hundred and thirty thousand francs, lea
wing the nett proceeds OF the cargoes (independ-
ent of The v~esSels) seven million three hundred
thousand francs, which was paid into the Gals
Sc reimbursement. Now, the very act OF le-
wing and collecting a duty upon this property,
is conclusive proof that the late government OF
France did not consider it contiScated. That
The present government does not consider that
they have any claim to ii, is equally evident
from the following circumstances.-Among the
vessels seized al St. Sebastian, was the ship
Eagle of this port. The Eagle had been cap
,ured in entering the port Of St. Sebastian; but
without any regard to the rights OF the cap
tors, she was seized and put under sequestra-
ton by the French government and sent to Bay
onne, where vessel and cargo, shared the same
fate as the rest.
The owners Of the privateer considered, that
if there was any forfeiture, it should accrue to
them: but being doubtful upon this subject, they
entered into a compromise with the agents OF
.he owners of the Eagle and cargo, who agreed
to allow the captors one half the proceeds, II
thew could obtain them restitution for the re-
mainder, without any regard to the justice or
Injustice Of the capture.
By the laws of France, transactions Of this
nature require to be confirmed by the Council
of State. Owing to a variety OF circumstan-
ces, this question was never decided In the
Council of State, until The goth April, 1920,
when this compromise was ratliied by the King
in. Council, and the proceeds of the sales OF The
Eagle and her cargo, were by a Royal Ordi-
nance. directed to be divided between the cap
tors and the owners Of the Eagle and her cargo,
aereeably to the conditions OF the compromise,
and the money was actually paid out OF the pub
lie treasury. The most important circumstance,
however, in this transaction is, the preamble to
this Royal Ordinance, a copy Of which is now
before me, and from which | make the follow
ing most important extract:
considering, that there does not exist in
" this case, any act pronouncing the %copfisca-
" ton Of the ship Eagle, to the profit of the
" French government; that the simple seques-
Z" ,%ration was a measure purely Of preservation;
" and could in no manner affect the intrinsic
" question of the validity of the capture"
Louis the XVIII. in declaring by this Ordl-
nance, that sequestration was purely a measure
Of preservation, and did not affect the National
character of property, has virtually liberated,
not only all the American property sequester-
ed at St. Sebastian, but also that seized at Ant
werp, and in Holland, as well as in all other ca
ses, where there was no final condemnation.