Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1835-03-07
S,.4TUEs RD.9I

'hoSe oil all other countries France also stipulated at
ue same time, to equalze the duties long aud short
staple cottons wch il is believed has been so far done
that royal ordinance has been issued admitting those
TWO species of cotton into France from all countries ON
one and the duty In payment of claims of citi-
zchs OF France, principally the Beaumarchais claim
sum OF one million five hundred thousand francs was
Stipulated TO be deducted from tho of indemnity
pad by France TO our citizens.
Such were the conditions of the Convention a com.
pact oil that best of all kinds viz those which are mu-
iuaIy advantageous 10 both parties for the under
signed VIII presently endeavor to prove time was
loSt by the American Government in carrying ii into cx-
ccutohi law was passed, at as early period
practicable providing for those parts which required
'niP OF Congress The payment of fifteen
huhurcd thousand francs TO French claimants sane
toned by the appropriation of that out of the Tea
sury, ana me stipulated reduction made in the
ties on French wines. At the session of Congress
IN the general revision of the tariff of duties on imports
into the United States the discrimination favor OF Eu
opean silks over those from beyond the Cape Good
Hope, carefully maintained Suggestions hive becn
made IN France that this discrimination kept UP from
general considerations of policy and not from any pur-
pose Observing gratifying France That the discrimna-
ting duties the trade beyond the Cape OF Good Hone
were, in the origin of our revenue svstem laid for the
supposed convenience of the Treasury because il
was thought that this trade could bear surcharge of u
ties, is perhaps true The undersigned however are of
opinion that such views, if ever entertained have
long since exploded that the trade beyond the Cane of
Good Hope is admitted to the same general
principles as the trade this side of the Cape OF Good
Hope, and that discrimination between the two is an
entire anomaly in system. The discrimination in
favor OF French silks VIGOROUSLY regarded great
noon by those most concerned to promote the
france III doubts on this point exist in Paris, they will
probably vanish examination of the archives of the
department. oil foeign AfHirs The debates in Congress
will not less conclusvely demonstrate that the friends of
TINS the two houses supported
ancc, from friendly town rd Franco 10
succeeding session of Congress law passed providing
fort gradual and general reduction all duties on imports
BY this law the dscrjm nation in favor of FencL -;
still kept up; and while French silks were allowed 10
be imported free duty after the 3st Of December 1873
those OF China remain charged with duty 10 per cent
Inc undersigned have not the least doubt that silk
manufacturers OF France would deem IL to their atvnn
tage to advance capital of % 900 900 ancs for the
sake OF securing this discrimination. The interest on
such CAPITAL at per cent is 250,000 which is not
much third ola duty per cent on the ononnt
oil french silks imported into the United States in
1888 But release from the payment of so much duty
IS by no means the extent of the benefit accruinU TO
France by this exemption. If discrimination exsted
considerable part of the importation of French silks
would cease altogether On the other hand TO the u s it
must be comparatively matter of indifference whether
the silks fCina France are consumed the f
this article required for their population would remain
the same; the means of payment would remain the
same and the quantity of American nrodncc exnor,nJ
would Also of course, remain the same The under
signed might so further and maintain that silk fabrics
are not an article of American manufacture the duty
on foreign silks is duty of that description which inn
poses burden the country without any benefit en-
HANGING prices, diminishing consumption aud lessenng
the amount Of domestic exports. This burden is laid
pean manufacturer.
Thus, faithfully and more than faithfully did the II
Staes iuihi on ter part the stiPuatons Of the treaty.
On the part of France xpected and hgblv IN be
regretted failure to fulfil the stipuations their side
mas taken place 1t cannot be matter Of surprise to the
French Government or People, that this failure has Great
ed great discomfort i'll the United States Suppose the
case had been reversed. Suppose France as The Uni
ted States have done had punctuay executed her Dor
ton OF the stiPuatons-Pad the twenty-five millions
and passed the requisite laws for equalizino the duties
cotons, and the Congress of the United States ocr
securing the money, had refused reduce the duties ON
wines; would not such refusal have been the source
OF equal surprise, disgust and offence, the part of
France?
The French Chamber of Deputies claims the right un
der the constitutional charter of France of withholding
July, 1881, into effect
alone drawn IN question in arriving at the conclusion
that the concurrence of the Chambers is necessary m The
validity OF treaty BY article 49, it stipulated that
inc king makes treaties of peace, alliance and com
merce; and, byarticle 49, thai tax can be establish
ed or collected lift has been consented to By the Two
Chambers, and sanctioned by the Kinps Ills affirmed
on the part OF France, that the treaty of 9TH july 1881 IL
not treaty of peace alliance commerce. but one of
indemnity, and consequently that if is NOT sc6 tr,
as the King alone make. To this it may be replied
lst that 1t IS purely treaty of commerce. making proy
sion for two Objects intimately with corercc
and nothing else One of these objects is satisfaction
Tor certain spoliatons formerly committed upon our com
merce the other the duties be levied on certain ar
uces OF commerce in the two countries respectively The
Undersigned believe that 1t would be very difficult pro-
pose any rational definition of a commercial treaty
which would not include whose provisions are s
chaacer AGAIN 1t deserves to be considered that if
the treaty of 9TH July, 1881 is neither treaty of friend
SHIP alliance commerce, then the charter of France
contains no authority by which such treaty be made
aud concluded either with without the concurrence
Of the Chambers. The whole trcaty-making power in
FRANCE is confined the words cited above from, tl 2b
article of the charter If these words do not rive tho
hlng OF the French the power to negotiate such treaty
1T rs not vested in branch of the French Govern
nent nor in all together, and does exist proposi.
ton which no one has presumed TO advance
But 1T Is admitted in the French Chambers that the
king has the initiative in negotiating such treaty but
that, it is treaty for the pnyment OF sum of Nancy
it requires under the doth article the concurrence of
Chamber of Deputies. This argument would prove too
much 1T would prove that the of the Cham.
bers IS necessary not merely TO the negotiation MI frea
ues but to the performance of many other functions
pTcssy vested in the King The argument it, that treaties
oil peace, alliance, and commerce. may tie concluded hy
the King, but that treaty Of indemnity, involving the
payment OF money requires the Of the Cham
bcrs But does not treaty Of peace commonly involve
expenditures Of money Does treaty of alliance in
yolve tho expenditure of money, slpulang IL may
that France shall make common with its av and
thereby making 1t necessary to raise armies and eoup
nayics? in like manner, treaties of commerce USUALLY
contain provisions absolutely requiring under the French
charter the concurrence Of the Legislature; as for in.
stance all duties Imports which, taxes must be
consented to by the Chambers. Thus the three kinds
peTogativo Of the King. al require legislative oo-opcra
on II this necessity Of Legislative cooperation proves
IN reference 20 the treaty Of July H. 1891 that the King
could not dcdnitivcly conclude that treaty, il proves the
same thing for the cause of all other kinds of trea-
ties which arc acknowledged nevertheless TO be within
his exclusive competence
But Is supposed in France that this claim on the part
OF the Chambers supported by the anoogy Of the Anne
ucan Constitution. The undersigned do not so under.
stand the Constitution Of the u. States BY that instru.
nent the treaty making power is vested exclusively in
tbe PRESIDENT aud senate; and treaty, duly made by
thcm rs declared by the instrument be the e.
peme law OF the land BY other provisions Of the Fede-
raj as o. the French Constitution the power 90 Law and
collect taxes j. vested in the Legislature and is pro.