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

STATES 10 capture all french armed trssefS,
and investing the President with power 10 issue
letters Of maque and reprisal.
But Ia all lhese acts, not word is said from
beginning TO end Of war or reprisals against the
private properly OF The unoffending citizens Of
france. On The contrary, II is matter Of his
toIcal record thai in consequence Of the cap
iure Of sundry French merchant vessels by our
armed vessels, the owners OF the captured prop
efty prosecuted and recovered in our courts TO
the extent Of upwards of three hundred thou
sand dollars.
This sort of plea, Of frulless and
unayailing war, is, al the best, no very chivalrc
defence; il is with no very good grace that
high spirited country can say 10 lis injured CHI
zens, "True, you have been plundered. We
were bound 10 protect you or TO redress your
grievances. The first duty we did not discharge
the latter we have been unable 10 perform.
we have gone TO war IN your behalf, but with
out success Your oppressors were 100 strong
Tor US. We have been obliged to make peace
without securing Gas far as you are concerned)
one snge object Of the Struggle. We are equal
ly unable to shield you from evil or TO right your
wrongs" Certainly, the statesmen Of any
country must be slow TO make such an answer
as th S; IL must be only in the last resort that
such an argument won d be made use Of. IL is
not for country which in two successive strug
giles has foled the mistress of the seas, TO con
Tess itself mpocnt 10 discharge the great fun
damental duty on which all Government is bas-
ed-that Of protecting its subjects.
And such is not the case. A. citizens of the
Republicans subjects Of the only free Gov rn-
ment TO be found on the face of this earth
blasted and desolated by misrule and tyranny
as American citizens, we are proud to be able 10
say that such is not the case. No unjustfabe
strife icas waged. No war uas fought
hpn h1arA of hat
set up as an answer TO these demands? A war
which consists merely in acts ofresistance, lin
tied purely and solely TO the capture Of armed
vessels actually engaged in plundering COM
merce-whch made no reprisals, took no prizes,
captured no merchantmen, inflicted no injury on
the private property OF citizens Of the French
Republic--does this answer any of the objects
of war; Was il a contest in which in good
faith the United States put forth their whole
strength TO avenge or redress their citizens
Was ii in any way calculated 10 ell, CT the
object, otherwise than as any mere menace
might answer the same purpose? Not so easl,
as this can Governments discharge their duties
Not thus are walls fought.
SO again with the military preparations An
army was called into exlstence-but for what
end? Purely for defence. II was not, and
could not be used for any offensive purpose
As on sea, so on land the United States only
assumed position Of menace and def ,nce, aud
arrested some few of the plunderers in Their
very acts of piracy. But as TO any general eff
fort TO redress by force the wrongs of our clll-
Zens-as for any war-It exists only In the ina
gination When was il d,cared2 When did
il cease2 There is no declaration, no treaty.
1t has neither beginning nor end
And then what is the language of the parties
when they together to negotiate In regard 10
all has of hat ,s Ihp
language of that treaty Of 1900, from which
new order of things dates? Not one syllable is
SAID OF war or peace--and the parties consider
and discuss all the matters open between them
precisely as if the amicable relations of the two
countries had not been moment interrupted.
This, ii seems TO US, is a sound and more
conclusive answer TO the argument we are now
considering. The French Government did moi
insist, and the American Government did not
for moment admit, tina, the claims for in
d, mniiy were in the least weakened or affected
by the matters we have just been considering.
The second article by the convention of 1900
treats the claims for indemnity valid and
binding, precisely 10 the same extent as al the
time OF III, il orisin How then is ii possible
now 10 say that these claims were merged or
sunk IN the war-even If war ii were. The
French Government the only party who could
have raised such question, never for an instant
thought OF so doing. Is II con .lslent either
with sound reason good faith for US, after re-
leasing and dischargiug tn demand by our own
act TO make a defence that the original debtors
did nel7 Who will make TO this question any
other Than an indignant ncgative2
Indeed IT Is as a matter Of national faith that
this subject alone interests u. Whether these
individual claimants are or are not Unidentified,
i, Of comparatively small account No doubt,
by the sudden and violent destruction of so
much private property, by the detenloa OF sums
so very large, great suffering has been occasion
ed. We have been told, and we doubt not the
fact, that in.iividual cases of the most grievous
hardship could be II ted, where privation, mise
~, for years and years, have been owing solely
TO this cause. But a thousand such instances
would not, IN oLr judgment, strengthen the case.
They may ''point the moral and adoru the tale,"
but they do not come up TO the magnitude OF the
subject The question Is one involving Nation
al Honor, National Justice, and as such alone
do we choose TO consider 1t. Is II true that this
Government, the corner stone Of whose suuc-
ture s equal justice TO all men-that this Gov
eminent which pretends to hold itself out as
model TO ether nations, a, most careful OF the
equal rights Of all classes and all lndivlduals-
that this Republic Of the United States has
really allowed claim upon its honor aud faith,
for forty years TO- lie unanswered aud urheededl
Is il really true that not merely neglected. Of the
rights of its cuizens, it HIS actually battered
away those rights for considerable most valu-
able to itself, and now turns deaf ear to an APP
peal 10 it, justice Is it true, that after the com
merce, which II was one OF It's first duties TO
protect, has b,en first despoiled by a foreign
government, without either punishment or re-
parstiop, 1t should have been again despoilcd by
our own government, by irafiicking off, in eq1i-
valent for valuable national lnduccment, with
out naturalization, those just claims which,
otherwise, the foreigner would not thus have
failed TO acknowledge and to pay7 These are
he questions that ver our mind-to which our
national pride would fam give an lad gnant de-
nial-but 10 which history, plain facts and naked
justice, compel an Affirmative response.