State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1831-1836, 1836-02-02

Of the French nation as early as the TWEEN
ty-ninth Of January, (the date Of Mr. Liv-
ingslon's first note,) and therefore previous
to the adoption Of the amendment under
consideration by the Chamber ofDeputies,
or as early as the twenty-seventh Of April,
(the date Of Mr. Livingston's second note,)
that is TO say, before the adoption Of this
same amendment by the other two branch
cs OF the Legislature, we would be sincere
ly grailied. The more the Government OF
the United States would have shown will
lingness to explain itself, the more we should
be ourselves disposed TO find the explana-
tons satisfactory, and TO view the solicitude
of that Government MS a testimony in favor
Of the intentions which had dictated the
Message Of the President.
We will simply observe before we pro-
coed,
First, That even supposing the explana-
tons given by the note Of the 2Sth of Jan
uary. TO have been sucH as we might have
wished them, they were on the 18th Of A.
pril, the day Of the passage Of the amend
ment in the Chamber Of Deputies, nothing
more than the simple expression of the per-
sonal sentiments OF Mr.. Livingston. This
is an observation which did not escape his
notice.
We will also observe that by the publica-
ton OF Mr.. Livingston's correspondence, the
Government OF the United States had excl
ted against Lin such a feeling OF irritation,
that it would have been out OF our power,
even supposing that we had considered that
correspondence as containing nothing but
what was right and proper, ITO avail our
selves Of IA document bearing his signature,
to repe in one or the other Of the Chambers
the amendment under consideration.
will now proceed to The examination of
the explanations which have been offered
To us.
Mr.. Livingston is right in thinking that
our objections to the Message OF the Presi-
dent are confined TO these two points,
LIST. The Message impeaches the good
faith ofhis Majesly's Government.
Cd. 1t contains threat 10 secure the ex-
eculion OF the treaty by the fear ofreprisaIs.
1t is indeed under this double point Of
view that the Message OF President jack
son excited in France the greatest indigna-
ton. The Cabinet Of Washington will
readily admit that ifthe allegation ,cas true,
the Indignation would be just. No Govern
ment, no people, would for one moment lis
ten without from either 10 the direct or in
direct imputa ton of want Of good faith,
or the idea Of another Government or an
other people endeavoring TO obtain from it
through menace, what could only be grant
ed by it to Justice. 1t must equally be ad-
mitted that when the impression produced
by the appearance of any document is gen.
eraI when that impression is felt, not only
by the whole nation whom the document
concerns, but even by foreigners, by unn-
terested people, by persons the least dispo-
scd to take a Dart in the contest, the very
universally Of that impression is sufii-
cient evidence against the general tenor Of
the document.
II we examine in detail the Message o!
The President Of the United States, q mean
that part of it which relates TO the relations
between the u. States and France,) it will
possibly be found that passing successfully
from phrase 10 phrase, none will be met
with that cannot bear an Interpretation
more or less plausible; none, of which,
strictly speaking, ii cannot be said that it is
a simple exposure Of such or such fact
true in itself, or the assertion OF such or
such right which no one contests, or the
performance of such or such an obligation
imposed on the President by the very ma
ture of lis functions. There will certainly
lie found several in which the idea Of i'm
peaching the good faith of the French Gov
ernment, or OF acting upon il through men
ace or intimidation, is more or less disa-
vowed
Yet when the whole succession Of facts
is taken into view when we perceive the
care which seems TO have been taken 10
present them in an unlavorable light, with
out making allowance for circumstances
which explained them, without paying any
regard TO considerations which the govern
ment of the u. States itself had previously
admitted; when we see at the end of this
uninterrupted series or allegations, which
have the appearance of wrongs, for the sole
reason that they are made 10 rest on isola-
ted and incomplete statements, the uueXpec-
ted proposition, the extreme proposition to
say The least, to seize upon French proper
ty, it is impossible at first view, ii is even
difficult after reflection, TO escape the
thought that all this part of the Message
had been written for the double purpose
stated abuve.
1t is not so, however; at least we hope
it is not.
But to Danish entirely such IN idea, what
would be necessary Nothing but what is
very simple. We do not here contend
about this or that phrase, this or that allie
CATION, this or that expression; we contend
about the intention itself, which has dicla-
ted that part oil the Message. II il be true
that the President OF the United States, in
to Congress statement OF the
facts connected with the Treaty Of the 4th
of July, had no intention Ia cast any doub,
on the good faith of the French Govern
mcnt; il it be true that the President of the
United States in proposing To Congress TO
decree the seizure by force OF arms the
ErercL ,rnDortv bo not ,lo ;n,o,,;,,, a.,