The Arkansas advocate., 1835-01-23
OUR CLAIMS ON FRANCE.

AS our relatlonS Wltn trance are receIV- ing more than an ordinary share of atten- ton, particularly since the Message of the President-and as we wish to present the subject of our claims in every possible view to our readers, we publish below the substance of debate in the French Cham Der of Deputies, on this interesting subject. Taking the statements of M. Bignon for granted-and as yet they have not been controverted it would certainly seem that there is not quite so much due to the American Government as is claimed by us, and that the kind of action on the part of Congress, called for by the President, would be ill-timed and unfortunate for the country; and therefore, we think that the subject should be we'll understood and look ed into by every member of the communi- ty. For ourselves, we do not fear the con- sequences of a war with France, which would inevitably take place should reprisals be made on French vessels by the Ameri- can Government; for let it be reeollected that France has dense and excitable pop ulation-a powerful navy-is at peace with the whole world-with nothing for her immense standing army to employ itself up- on-and therefore, not as averse to war with any nation as we might be induced to believe. But if reprisais are ordered, we, for one, will never be found opposed to our country, its ld,Os, and its fag.-ED. ADV. Substance ofthe debate ia the French Cham
 Der of Deputies, on the American Claims.
 Sitting of .March 28, 1884.
 The order of the day being the discussion of the project of the law relative to the exe- cution of the treaty concluded with the Uni ted States,
 M. Boissy d'Anglas opposed the project as not useful to the country, and not con- taining any principle of reciprocity, con stituting but charges against France.
 M. Sebastiani supported 1t, alludlng to the only difficulty which had previously ex- isted Tn the treaty of 1900, in consequence of the Americans claiming losses under the Directory, which was removed by the treaty of Louisiana, 1903. The disasters of the empire retarded the claims. which however were acknowledgedby the treaty of July 4 1881.
 M. Bignon acknowledged that there was something due to the Americans; though there might be spacious arguments against even that position. He admitted, however a legitimate indemnity for vessels burnt ol destroyed at sea. He thought the sum ot 1 twenty-five million of francs claimed toe large. He contended that the war of the French Revolution had given an entire new aspect to maritime affairs, France causing England thereby 10 surrender the absolute domination she claimed over the sea, and that America, through this intervention o France, was the nation that had most profit ed by the change. That France had al ways possessed the most generous and flbe. ral doctrines on maritime neutrality, anc that every nation, especially the weakest ought to wish the law on this subject to be positive and fixed; while the most powerful nation on the contrary wished lt to be un' settled, so as 10 form convential compacts to her own advantage with those nations with whom she assumes this sovereignty.
 England thus stood alone against all oth- CT commercial nations, who, with France IT the van, contended for humanity and justice. The First Consul, therefore, in the treaty ol 1900, with the United States, recognized and maintained the principle of free naviga- ton, and also in the same year in the quad rnpe alliance with Paul l. This principle growing out of the system of the French Government in 1760, was maintained Tn the treaties at Berlin, Stockholm, and Co- penhagen, and even after the death Of Paul I. and the defection of Russia. The prln- ciple of maritime neutrality was first violated by the British orders in council of lso3- 1905, by seizure, right of search, fictitious biockades, to which the Americans patient 1 ly submitted, because, notwithstanding the insults offered to them, their commerce con tinued to reap an enormous but disgracetul harvest. Their exportations and carrying trade at this epoch were estimated at over l0O0,O 0,OoO,0O0 of dollars. It was in retalla- ton of the orders in council, and particular ly of those of May l6, 1906, which had de- cared in state of blockade all the ports from Brest to the mouth Of the Elbe, that was issued the celebrated uecree of BerlIn' of November 2l, the same year, which Pla- ced all the British isles in a state of block ade.