Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1835-01-13


that the Convention of July d. 1881 would be violent
opposed Good faith. therefore, rendered it necessary
ehghten the public mind beforehand and prepare t
way for impartial discussions and the king goyernmeit
might indeed have been fairly taxed with of fore
sight had it, under such circumstances called at one
on e Legislature for its assent to the treaty Indeeo
such mode ofproccedng that best calculated 10
uager the entire accomplishment of the affair and could
oniy have been adopted by government less anxious
10 iuihll ITS engagements On the contrary the plan
pursued by the Kings Government atcsts the purity of
its intentions. AS it considered the moment
propnous, the treaty was communicated to the Cham
oeI Oh deputies, and an appropriation demanded in
order TO its execution; and the rcproach that an oppor
tunity had not been given to the Chambers of pro-
nouncing upon the treaty is sufficiently obyatcd by
inc Parliamentary communications made twice the
subject
Mr.. Livingston the Minister of the IT, States having
reached faris and had audience with the KING on
the 9Th of October IS33 addressed note TO the Duke
de Broglic: in which he says, The verbal assurance
winch his Majesty pleased to give the undersigned
when he had the honor Of being presented to him and
those which he received in the conferences below aud-
sd TO- from the Minister of Foreign Affairs, leave
doubt OF The desire his Majesty has faithfully to perform
the stiPuatons entered into with the U 81 In the re-
ply ottsc Duke, under date the Odd of the same month"; a
lI commenting on other parts ofAr L. he express
cd the following emphatic assurance: The undersion-
cd VIII conclude therefore, by assuring My. Living
son again. positively that at the next session and
on the day alter the Chamber of Deputies shall have
oeen constituted ready for business, the Kings Govern
ent w,i lay before It the y?e de io relative to the
convention OF 18th July, 1881" In subsequent note
OF The DOke 10 MIR. Livingston under date of the pad
November 1888, he repeats " The undersigned is as
States can be- for the deinitve conclusion of an affair."
the delays IN which completely independent of the
will of-the Kings Government"
The Committee have thus traced the correspondence
down to the approach of that of the Chamber of
deputies during which the bill of appropriation was re-
Jectcd The extracts from il might have been erMrDed
and multiplied but those which been presented ac-
count and the committee think satisfactorily 70 the delay
the part of the Kings Government i'm pressing tbe
oiil to final decision. They demonstrate also up to
that PERIOD the sincere desire with which the King and
ms Minister of Foreign fairs animated to carry
u Nv lnfn n. Al. =
can government very propey demonstrated against tho
delay appears nevertheless to have been satisfied with
the sincerity and good faith of the Kings Government
Nr Livingston an eye witness on the spot declares
late Ocbbors 1873 that the assurances received NV
nimdrectly iomthe King and from the Duke dc Brog-
lie lett not doubt his mind of the desire of the Kinp
faithfully to perform the stipulation with the United
States.
The committee next felt it incumbent upon them TO
examine into the proceedings and discussions in the
French Chamber OF Deputies, of which copy has been
communicated by the Executive to the Senate the
subject OF the bill making appropriation to carry into
effect the treaty The right of the Chamber freely to
anime the treaty. and TO grant refuse the supplies
cessary to execute it, appears throughout those proceed
ings and discussions to have been generally conceded or
at least never contested On the presentation of the bill
IN Ianel 1873 me PRESIDENT of the Chamber remarked:
Inc night OF the Chamber is clearly established; no
treaty OF the sort presented perfect or can
be carried into execution in any of its parts until tho
Chamber has gwen the Government the of exc
cutting L. Nothing can be considered defntve which
is subject TO the vote Of the Climber" Accordingly
all the documents and papers connected with the eoo.
uaton, were submitted to the committee to which the
bill referred and canvasscd by them as freely and
iuIy as the treaty had never actually been concluded
On this right, depending il does upon lust construc-
uonoi the provisions OF the French charter the commit
Ice do not feel 1T necessary, if they competent
express any opinion Whether the Chambcts have the
right or not they clearly possess the power to refuse an
appropriation to the treaty into effect The injury
10 us the same IN both cases or varies only in degree
In either case satlstactonis withheld for claims of Anne
rcan citizens, which believe founded in Justice
and would have justified in their origin an appeal to
arms and these claims admitted be Just by rea-
t concluded with the authority of the King ratified by
him. and bearng upon It's face all the testimony COM
plcte and perfect national com pact
The bill 10 carry into eject the treaty having been
twice presented at previous sessions of the Chamber of
Deputies was again submitted TO il the 18th Janu.
arY 1854, by the minister of finance Ii was referred
TO a committee which, on the 10th of March following
made an elaborate and able report concluding by re-
commenting the adoption of the bill The debate
opened upon it the 25th of March, and was
continued until the LIST of April; when by a vote
OF one hundred and seventy-six one hundred
ana slAy-eght, 1t was rejected. is not the intention
OF your committee to exhibit sketch of the facts
and arguments brought forward either in the report or
the discussions in which Of the Kings ministers
shared But they do than Justice in rendering
their humble testimony to the mastery ability and states
man.ike bearing exhibited by the Minister of FOREIGN
Affairs in the Chamber of Deputies That Minister
Immediately resigned bis place. in consequence of tho
vote of the Chamber.
The committee has looked into these proceedings. and
discussions to Discovers they could the of Inc
lection OF the bill The principle OF indemnity seems 10
have been generally admitted The diversity of opinion
was chiefly as to the amount But besides this wide
and dcep-rooted prcjudces the chamber Some
OF the members appear have thought that France was
peyothe rapacty Of foreign powers; that the u S. owed
her OF gratitude growing out of her assistance in our
struggle Tor independence that ought TO have restrained
them from Pres' ntng any claim least have greatly
moderated their demands that the DEGREES ont
OF which large part Of the claims sprung were no more
than Just retaliation upon the begerent edcs of Great
Bain that the claims in the hands few specu-
lators that upon fresh negotiate the amount of in
demnity would be materially reduced; and .hat as 10
eigbtoi the tweny-fiv millions of francs the United
States were seeking a double satisfaction. first from
SPAN IN the Florida treaty, and then from France i'm
tne treaty OF 1871. -FOUR committee cannot but think
mat hs last Objection utterly gToundlcss and derogato-
ry from National honor tits excrted consde.
sprung towards the close e the debate and the sun
Poriers of the bill being taken by surprise all the
satisfactory explanations Of which the Spanish treaty
IS susceptible, not made. The controlling mo.
tive, however Of the majority is believed to have been
conviction entertained by them that the treaty spu-
iges the payment OF greater sum than is Justly due from
France.
Unfortunately we arc, perhaps not altogether free
from the reprOach of having contributed TO make this
uniaYoabe impression Of the treaty the mind Of the
French Chamber" In his despatch under date the 9Th
July, 1881, accompanying the treaty, and addressed to
The Secretary Of State, after explaining some of its
provisions, and referring to the opinion Of Mr. Gal.
latin, Mr.. Rvcs says: If the opinion here cxprcss-
ed be correct, and certainly enjoys or is entitled
To more respect, the stipulated 10 be paid by the
French Government will be IMPLY sufficient to satisfy all
the Just claims OF our citizens of cUcry Descriptions
pretended in the scope Of the negotiation Agan he re-.
marks: "he result which has been gained in the in
tercst Of the claimants has been achieved without
the greatest difficulty. The correspondence Of Mr. Craw-
ford Of Mr. Gallatn and Of Mr.. Brown with the De
parncut Of State 1.-The unfvorable paris Of which bnvc