Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1835-11-13

the 9th of April 1883 The confederation ofthis hill was
ON account Of The closing of that session It
WIS ann presented in the very short session which ne
ens"ed A lill for HE purpose was afterwards
Sesenied On he 18Th of January, 1854 and rejected on
oe hIst o. April following, 10y MAJORITY of eight voices
Tie King Government resolved unanimously TO appeal
from this vote 70 the next Legislature officially in
formed the President ofthe s. ofthis its determination
Leutr from Count de Rigny Minister of Foreign m.
Jaus 70 VI Ser~rer 81 7pr eth lc34, Note from N
oe1Wter 70 Mr. urIans Of .jhne s. 1884
The events which have since the
iessage, ire discomfort OF the French Government the
diplomatic measure by which it expressed and the
gnt IN winch those measures have been viewed i'm the
Chamber. VIZ "o"" " 'ne
We now come to the examination of tho hill beforc
you and we shall begin by indicating the rights and The
SITUATION OF the Chamber respects this examination
,rs,,e oearsr gives to the King the right of making
"e'ueso OF peace, alliance, and commerce.
~ ne Charter gives to the two Chambers and to the
noes OF Deputies in the frs; instance, the right of
s'ig FUNDS, and, as necessary consequence that of
regulating The public expenses.
me royal Perogatiye and the parliamentary prcroga.
i've are separate and dsnct they limit each other and
'iey do not infringe upon each other
a treaty containing clause imposing n financial
aIge upon tne state concluded without the interfe-
concurrence W
treaty containing clause which imposes financial
charge upon the State, indeed concluded when Inc
hny has signed it, under the countersgn of his Minis.
Yer but the financial for il execution depend
on the vote of the Legislature r.
10 take from the Chambers the mower Of vo,;rr On an
expenditures by introducing it treaty. or TO amend
ueay oy delberaung its financial provisions would
a
Preroganves which the Crown and the Chamber have
ieIslved ay y, Tor the advantage of the country
i:uo'Suiy the Chambers, in celebrating on an ex-
Penditure for the execution of treaty have the i'm
Pnct right to examine the treaty ITSELF TO see whether
DC honorable and useful and 10 grant or refuse their
sssn' 10 IT. according the results such examination
nevertheless, IL must be recolected that refusal is
serious natter the security of diplomatic relations
may be troubled by IL, aud the political credit of the
country may suffer from it, These are not grounds for
uenylng THE rights they only motives for us;no
rarely and only in cases when the extent Of tho ell
10 W.,
when gave TO the Crown alone the power of renre
senung the country in its foreign intercourse command
nat should not be restrained the exercise of this nre
rogatve, by mprudent disavowals FIVE wish lis word
TO be powerful and respected in the transactions which
may conduct with other countries in the name of France
we must not allow IT TO be contradcted slight grounds
ut home In order TO stipulate with effect + mns
promise with confidence. Errors and even faults NAV
oIeseen; Out thcse errors and faults committed
with the advice ofcouncillors who are responsible and
on whom the Chambers may exercise their severity ac
cordIng TO the Constitution has been almost niovs
The practice of free countries to keep even those
ments Tor which they would punish others
Although the Chambers should use this right with
cauton yet II still rests with them: il cannot be denied:
II should not be forgotten This reservation ought with
proprey to have been inserted in the treaty of 1881
ts would indeed have added assurance of the riCht
OF the Chambers, for il exists without being
put would have better secured the freedom of their
aehoeratlons, and in of dissent would save the dir
hity OF the crown. The United States, thus warned
would have had no pretence insist upon payment
which the law had not authorized The Government
would have avoided painful discussion while de.
Tending its duty, the constitutional rgh,s of Inc
Gham1ers, 1T would have incurred, the part of the
United States the reproach, least the suspicion of
faith - i" s"'O
Let us now turn from principles TO facts-ffom the
question OF consutonality to the bill which gave rise
TO it, So 49,
The Convention of July 4th 1891 is not regular set
ement OF accounts upon bases reciprocaly agreed to:
rs promise between the most opposite pretensions
Inc United States demanded ndemnGcation for all
seizures made in defiance of their neutray they con-
sdeed the conhscation of their vessels and goods as
having been entirely illegal for they were in violation of
reciprocal obligation contained the treaty of 1900 of
,ne rights OF nations after the expiration of that Conyen
uon and OF positive promise after the repeal of the de-
crees OF blockade France on the other hand insisted
that the DEGREES of blockade were issued in the lofl
exercise OF the right of retaliation against the reausi-
TONS OF England and the submssiveness of the United
states to these acquisitions, which destructive 10
on account Of the laws which Just but on account
OF their application which may have been unjust or ir-
regular
plan demanding decentralization for all the losses tire
french negotiators have, less explicitly always
rejected the demand for decentralization in general ad
mitlng however certain categorics ia favor Of which x
ceptions might be made.
How were such differences to be rcconcled?
In differences between individuals suit ia the last re-
sort IN differences between Suites war is the last resort
II each party IS willing to avoid war, compromise may
be made Such the relative situation of France and
the United States. But in what way was the compro-
mise TO Dc made a compromise of principles was i'm
possbe the United States could admit that act of
the french Government could legally modify treaty
which was binding on both Powers. The French Go
seIheh could not acknowledge the llegalty of its
oecrees whe extraordinary circumstances and fragrant
Provocations served TO Justify o excuse them
AS neither party would surrender any of its principles
compromise could only be made with regard to tile
amounts supported on these principles. The sum of
twenty-five millions offrancs represents this compromise
How were ITS merits TO be estimated We cannot take
as basis either the propositions of the Imperial Govern
ment, since 1t was made on statements known to be in
complete, nor that Of the commission of 1881 whic as
could do no better, presented the propositions
formed on the data.
we can ind no traces of any of those offers which arc
SAID to have been offered by the United States 10 accept
small sum indie notification; those which were re-
pulsed by the Duke Of Bassano were merely the a,enpts
Of private intriguers
In order to estimate accurately the extent of the con-
cesslon agreed 10 by the French negctaor we must en-
oeavor 10 set forth the amount of the demands which be
had 10 oppose and OF those which he was TO supDor
rican commerce7 =
The statements drawn up by Mr. Rves before the CON
venton OF July 9TH, made ii the value of four
teen millions OF dollars seventy -four millions Of ranc
(hte doHas Jeing estimated francs SO ceimes or
ne franc at IS cents and 77-10OM
Since The Convention made. the me rican COM
mission, which admitted no claims except upon cocu-
mentaTy proof and under oath has fixed the whole
amount OF the damage known sad proved at seventeen
minions OF dollars-ninety-two millions of francs |
MS commission, however, admitted claims for injuries
anterior to the treaty of 1903; il these be subfSced
there remain about 500 eco doars or II 900 eco Of
francs - '''''
Finally, our French documents enable us to make an
estimate insuficienty indeed Of the whole amount Of
the injury sustained by the Americans
J. The prices OF the sale Of vessels condemned
which had been sequesered at Antwerp, Saint Sebas-
tan - and Bayonne, indicated by the Custom house
lists and amount TO about ........... IL 600 600