The daily Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1841-1845, 1844-02-12

Iisf' ~ ~
Reposing full confidence in the dspos ition
and ability of their Government 10 Obtain IN
demnity az The hand Of the aagressors, the mer-
chants aud mariners Of our county pursued &C
cOrdlDgly their vocation, and as often as these
violations Of neutral rights occurred placed ON
the files Of the Department evidences OF their
loss. Energetic remonstrances and claims for
indemnity were presented by our ministers re-
sidenl in Paris, Messrs. Morris and Monroe
aud subsequently special embassies were dcs-
patched, first in the persons OF Charles e. Pink.
ney, John Marshall, and Elbridge Gerry, aud
afterwards in those OF Oliver Ellsworth, w illiam
II. Davie, and VIM. v. Murray. From the com
mencemeni to the end Of all these negotiations,
which resulted in The convention of September,
1900, our Government instructed their repre-
senlauves on no account 10 surrender the GAINS
Of our citizens for these losses and Us late "a
October, 1899, the ministers last named were
instructed . 10 inform the French ministers,
that The United STATES expect from France, as
an indispensable condition Of The treaty, siipu-
ation TO make 10 the citizens Of the United
States full comp nsalion for all losses and da-
images which they shall have sustained by rea-
son OF irregular or lille gal captures or condemna-
ton Of their vessels aud other property, under
color Of authority or commissions from the
French Republic"
Our ministers commenced their negotiations
at Paris on the 7,h April, 1900, with Joseph Buo-
naparte, &. +. &. Flturieu, and Mr. Roedcrer,
who were appointed 10 act in behalf of France.
The object Of these negotiations, il was muiu-
ally acknowledged, was "to ascertain aud dis
charge the equitable claims Of The citizens Of
either nation on the other, whether founded On
mutual treaty or The laws Of nations. Vari-
Gus projects were eIchanged, imbodying the
views Of The respective ministers, all acknow-
Lodging the existence OF these claims, and en-
deavoring TO devise means for their adjustment
Political considerations, however, on both sides
OF the Atlantic, were pressing for some settle
ment Of the national differences that had en-
broiled The Two countlies and aflera very spir-
tied and energetic discussion, the convention
was signed on the 30ih September 1900, which
contained he following provisions in regard TO
these claims, viz:
.4rtiele ID "The ministers plenpotentary OF the
two parties not being able to agree at pr sent respec
ting the treaty Of alliance Of the 9th February, l776
the treaty of amity and commerce of the date
and the convention of the l4lh November, 1888, nor
upon the ndemnites mutually due or claimed the
parties will negotiate further these at convent
ent time ; and until they may have agreed on these
points, the said treaties and conventions shall have
operation.
article 5ih The debts contracted by Of the two
nations with individuals Of the other shall be paid
the pa yment may be prosecuted in the same manner
if there had been no misunderstanding between
the two states. But this clause shall not extend 10 IN
IDENTITIES claimed account Of captures condemna
tions
Ii will thus be perceived that all the claims
and hopes Of our aggrieved citizens centered in
the second article, the peculiar construction of
which was resorted to as the only way in which
a restoration Of friendly relations could inmedi-
| atey take place, while at the same time ii con-
tanned an ample recognition OF these mutual re-
cama'ions-ours for spollalions on the persons
and properly of our citizens, and theirs for the
nOn-execution OF treaty stipulatlons, and the
Withholding of conventional privileges. Up 70
this point therefore, there is no difficulty. These
positions are incontestabe, namely
First, That our citizens had claims on the
government of France fer spolialions by capture
and condemnalions, which our government in
sisted were justly and equaby due
Second, That these were not waived or
leased, nor in any way abandoned but were
still open, and subj CT Of pending negotia-
lions.
Third, That France had certain counter
claims against our government.
Now the natural question is, What has be-
come of these reciprocal demands No statute
of limitations affects the rights Of sovereign
powers. Nuiium, fempus occarrH regi What,
then, has become Of these claims, 50 long and
stenuouslv insisted on They differed in their
nature. The extent Of our damage il would
not be difficult TO establish as our merchants
and mariners had ample means of proving the
loss Of property incurred by these acts Of Of vio-
lence on the part of France. But the claims Of
france on our government were vast and indie
finite, calculated not only TO absorb those which
might be established by our citizens, but 10 oui.
weigh them TO an extent which IL might be DIFF
hcult 10 measure, and which might bring the
balance greatly against US.
Impressed with these apprehensions, the Sc
nate Of The United States, to whom IT was sub
milled after being approved by the First Con
sui, gave their sanction only on condition Of
striking out the second article, and limitD, the
Duration of the convention to eight years. Thus
altered and abridged, twas returned to France,
whose government. after some hesitation, sp-
proved the alteration, with this momentous
addition Prorided that by this reirenchment
(the e1pupging of the second artcle) the two
States renounced the respective pretensions
whish are the subject of The said ar,clr."
Thus modified, it was approved by the Sen
ate, on the 10Th Of Decemb, r, 1901, and became
! the law OF the land
The claims of cur injured citizens a, against
their own Government here take Their rise, and
we do not think we can sun up the case Of the
claimants in moie ineligible and concise form
than by adopting The language ascribrd TO The
petitioners IN the report made to the Senate of
United States, December 81, 1880, by that
distinguished jurist and statesman, the late Ed
ward Livingston:
4" As citizens Of the United States, we had rights
which France, as friendly power was bound by the
laws OF nations 10 respect We had other rights
which were secured to US by positive com, act be
tween France and the United States. These rights
Of both descriptions having been violated by the for
mcr power. greatly 10 our pecuniary injury our first
application was TO the justice Of the sggressor
Finding this unayang, we complained to our
natural and sworn protectors, the Government Of the
United States, who promptly volunteered its agency