Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1846-09-29

y
by declaration that you were not instructed 10
complain of The decree2 / confess thatl am un-
apprised OF The data, upon which such an OPINION
could be founded and undoubtedly The President
himself would not undertake, that The people VI
the United States would bear with patience ue-
pauure from slipulalions, which are 9eneraiiy
believed To be important 10 rs. Lei me
therefore enreat you il my letter OF July ooth
has not already stimulated you 10 demonstrate
against the decree, 10 do SO without delay.
We only hope lhatlhe commune OF public safety,
will not continue in the belief, that The Executive
are of opinion, that il will be satisfactory 10 dis
pense with the articles" The very first despatch
received from Mr.. Monroe after these instruc-
lions, conveys The information, that decree mao
passed the convention whereby II was re-
solved to carry into strict execution the treaty Oh
commerce. This transaction places II beyond
a doubt that the administration did mol permit
any consideration relating TO the guarantee 10
restrain their efforts TO obtain strict execution
of the treaty, and the repeal Of The decree aulho-
| rizing spoliations upon our commerce Inc mo
menl that it was apprised that one of It's agents
had suffered himself 10 be embarrassed by such
motives, he was reprimanded, and perempory
instructions given him forthwith TO insist unon
the treaty stipulaiions. will not waste an effort
| 10 place this Point in a stronger light.
have seen il suggested that The indemnify
| claims we're released in consideration oil reln-
| punishment OF certain national claims, which
| France held against our Government, Tor COM
pensation of alleged violations OF treaty spula-
lions. That those French claims were frivolous,
will appear sufficiently probable, when The fact is
known that The pretended violations Of faith up
on which they are founded all occurred after The
Federal Government was organized under the
present Constitution. | merely notice This posi-
tion, however for The purpose OF stating, upon The
authority Of documents now before me, that The
national claims of The u. States against France
were better founded and larger in amount, Than
the claims of the same soft which France pre-
| tended to hold against us. II is 10 be presumed
| that hose and not the individual claims for in
demniy were the consideration Tor ex,inguishing
the national claims Of France
The authority OF Mr.. Madison has been used
! in aid OF the position, that the indemnify claims
were rrlinquished for valuable consideration
| Rul when we come TO enquire into il we find that
The expression Of Mr.. Madison, which is relied
upon occurs in diplomatic communication,
which, as Secretary Of Stale, that gentleman ad-
dressed 10 our Minister 10 Spain, Tor The purpose
of furnishing him with arguments 10 resist Inc
refusal of Spain 10 indemnify Tor her depreda-
lions, justified on the ground that France had
been exempted from indemnify in similar case.
Need any thing more be said2 Does not every
negotiation is never respected as The flnal and de-
| libera,e sense OF his own Government, either as
10 fact or principle? A diplomatic agent like the
advocate al the bar, has 10 present The strongest
lille Of his own case, and assumes many positions
! Thai are not enable. When The advocates OF
these claims resort 10 this implication Of authori-
| ". they expose their poverty of sound resources
Feeble indeed mus, be the condition OF cause
| which has TO lean lis totterins weight upon The
| authority oil diplomatic device The advocate,
par excellence, OF the vetoed bill, Mr.. Clayton,)
very gravely contends, that no credence Is 10 be
given to The declaration OF Mr. Jefferson, deibe
ralely made, in his message 10 Congress, that
there was a surplus in the Treasury, because il
was only made with view OF deceivns The Bril-
tish councils. How much stronger may this ar
gumenl be applied agai inst the authority OF an ex-
preston of Mr.. Madison, used for The exclusive
purpose of operating npon the Spanish cabinet!
The Government OF the United States has then
neither directly nor indirectly derived any advan-
tage from The losses OF The claimants; and the
only other ground upon which that Government
can be charged is, that it abandoned its duties
and neglected those excrtons in behalf OF the sui
crers which they had right 10 require Their
rights on this score having been withheld, they
come now 10 demand compensation. To this COM
| plexion, the demand upon The Federal Govern
ment must al last come
That a citizen has rights against the govern
ment is as certain as that the government owes
duties 10 its citizens But as rights and duties
are reciprocal in order 10 ascertain what are The
rights Of The injured citizen, with respect 10 his
own government, we must first know what are the
duties TO which that government is bound. What,
then, is the duty which government owes TO the
citizen who has been wronged in person or pro-
perty2 Manifes,ly, TO make use ofevery reason
able and probable means Of redress. Beyond
this. il should not go, because il is Instituted for
general and permanent purposes, and is not al
liberty TO waste its resources tor temporary or
particular objects. proper regard Tor the pre-
servation Of lis own faculties, is general obliga
ton. due 10 society al large, which limits the par
tcular duty OF protecting The individuals compo-
sing thai society. Whenever il squanders its re-
sources in impracticable and irrational efforts in
behalf OF citizen il is guilty of an offence against
the whole community. II this view be correct,
| when citizen has suffered wrongs al The hands
o. foreign power, he can only expect his govern
| menl 10 make use Of those appropriate means Of
redress, which are calculated 10 effect the bect.
| What those means are, must depend upon The
peculiar circumstances of each case. would as
soon think of appointing line OF travel for The
mariner as 10 lay down any general rule upon
this subject. The influences which should ope-
rate in the selection Of a remedy, are as variable
as The wind, of Heaven. IL is from this conside
ration that another and highly important quail
iicaion OF The right OF the citizen, and the duty Of
The government, arises. II being utterly imposs-
Bile TO prescribe the measures which should be
adopted, the selection OF the mode OF remedy in
| any case which may arise, must be left 10 the
Judgment Of those who administer the government.
| Consequently, the power with which government
is entrusted, for the purpose OF redressng the
wrongs of its citizens, is discretionary porrcr.-
Now, ii is in the very nature OF such power
! that nothing more than good faith can be requ-
| red from lis depository.
/ When then, a citizen receives an outrage al
The hands Of foreign government, the duty Of
his own government is completely discharged,
when in good faith its powers have been employ
ed 10 have his wrongs redressed. The mode and
measure OF its efforts are to be determined by lis
own discretion. An improper intention, and not
a mere error OF judgment, must be shown, in or
der to establish dereliclion OF duty. To sustain
in sucn case an equitable demand upon The
government you must prove that it has neglected
those reasonable and practicable remedies within
lis reach, and acted with a culpabe indifference
10 your interests. Adopt any other principle and
you will bankrupt any government! in The world;
for. infrmy Of judgment is inseparable from The
administration OF human institutions. Who shall
sources in the last war, would not have covered
England in the dust, and exac,ed from her snppi-
ant hand full compensation for The ourases
which produced thai rupture
In the debate on the subject OF indemnifying
the losses upon The Niagara frontier, in The last
war. Judge Barbour presented his view OF the
character and extent of the obligation of govern
menl, and used so happy an illustration, that
shall present his own words 10 the reader II may
illustrate my idea, by an example taken from The
municipal law. Suppose case of larceny; is the
government bound 10 pay the loser2 Certainly
mol. But ii is bound 10 punish The Thief, if il can
catch him. So if foreign nation has inflicted
lawless injury on citizen, his government i.
bound 10 punish that nation il team, but motto in
demnify The Citizen out Of the public Chest
The mode and measure OF that punishment as
we'll as The question, whether il can punish al a
is necessarily lett TO The discretion OF the govern
menl, and so long as that discretion is faithfully
exercised, The citizen has no ground for complaint
Bearing these principles in mind, lei me ask
the reader to review the measures adopted By the
Federal Government, with regard 10 The French