Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1846-09-15

implcation from the retrenchmenl OF the second
article. Their advocates contend, that The U.
States, having relinquished their claims Tor Inc
purpose of being relieved from the obligations oil
The treaties, which were a burden 10 US, and nav
ing thus obtained valuable consideration Tor
that REIMBURSEMENT are now bound 10 indemnify
them.
will not dispute the principle involved in this
argument, but deny The tact which il charges.
The United States were not released from the OBJ
legation of the treaties by the convention OF $500.
To obtain release from those treaties was not one
of the objects Of the negotiation. Our ENJOYS
were nstruced-not 10 procure the abolition OF
those lreaties-but mol 10 consent 10 their rerrat.
Our own lac ofJuly 7th, 1898, had already re-
lleyed US from the burden OF the treaties. Under
the law OF nations, We had perfect rishtlo annul
them BY that declaration. Vatel explicitly an
nounces the principle. He says: "The party
who is offended or injured in those particulars
which constitute the basis OF the treaiyi is al
liberty to choose the alternative, OF compelling
fahess ally to fulfil his engagements, or OF d.
clariug The treaty dissolrsd by his violation of H."
1t is power to be exercised only by decla ration
The exercise Of this power by the United States
in the solemn declaration that they were ofrigh,
freed and exoneraled from the s!ipulalions OF The
treaties" and "lhat the same shall not henceiorh
be regarded as legally obligatory" Operated full
complete and perpetual abolition OF them. The
assent of France was wholly immalerial, a mat
Ter about which we were so Indifferent, that
our Ministers were no, even instructed TO
ask for il. To declare violated treaty
null, is an act, 10 which every sovereignty is
competent And, whether the treaty has been
violated by the other party, is a subject upon
which each nation must determine for itself. If
il act upon insufficient grounds, lis act OF abro-
CATION is not less valid than would be decara-
lion of war for an unjust cause. But | do not
ask that others should be guided by the feeble
lights OF my own reasoning upon The subject.
have direct authority, which must command
The unhesitating respect OF every one who reveres
genius and learning. Chancellor Kent unequi-
yocaly asserts the principle and, in illustration,
cites The very incident which We are now consl-
dering. quote his own words: "The violation
of any single article oveuhrows The whole treaty,
if The injured party elects SO 10 consider it. We
hare a strong instance in our otrn history OF The
anaiiiLation nj treaties by The act OF The injured
party. In 1893 Tie Congress Of he United States
declared that HE treaties ruth France rcyc no lon-
ger 0blgatOyy" The treaties being annihilaled
by the law Of 1893, il was not in our power, had
it been our desire, 10 recall that act. To annihi-
late treaty one day. and resuscitate 1.-THE next By
the act OF the same party, is sort of solemn
irifiing, not recognised in the code OF national
law. Consequently, al the date OF the negolia-
ton, in 1900, those treaties were utterly extinct.
When, with this fact before us, we look al the bold
assumption OF these people, that their claims
were made The instruments Of eXtinguishing
the extinct treaties, We are torcibly reminded OF
Falstaf, with Hotspur's corpse upon his Shout
ders, demanding 10 be made an ear! or a duke, al
the least, for killing The dead Percy. The thing
is not 10 be tolerated. II they are correct, then
should we have to convict our Government Of The
unheard Of folly and extravaganza Of assuming
claims agans. France 10 the amount OF many
millions, tor the idle purpose OF obtaining her as
sent 10 an act, which was perfect and complete
without il. We shall also have 10 render the COM
piment TO French diplomacy, that they succeeded
in obtaining millions Tor an object (the assen! OF
France to the abrogation OF The lrealies) without
value to us, aud about which, in the opening Of
the negotiation, We were so profoundly Indifferent
that We did mol even ask for il. Mr.. Adams re-
Gently expressed wish that the Oregon treaty
would leave room for suit III chancery ior the
navigation Of the Columbia. II the claimants
can make out their position we certainly might
20 into chancery and avoid the convention Of
1900, on The ground OF unheard Of imposition on
The part OF The French, and equally novel imbe-
cilily on ours This notion OF our having receir
indemnities, must be abandoned.
By reference TO The documents relating 10 this
subject, it may be seen, that This very PROPOSE
lion, that We should assume the indemnities in
consideration OF the French remuneration Of The
treaties, ,cas proposed by France, aad luomphya'd
unan,m0uslV rcjecicd IN tic american EHrops.-
On the 4th September 1900, the French Commits.
sioners proposed that the United States should
discharge the indemnities, and that France would
Ienounce the privileges OF the treaties. On The
9th, the American Ministers inform them that
they are unanimous in the opinion, that they
could not accede 10 this proposition. This fact is
worthy Of remark.
The course OF The Senate, in ret.enching the
second article, admits Of easy explanation, with
out resortDg 10 The extraordinary supposilion II
an assumption OF the indemnities. BY reservins
the treaties Of alliance and Of commerce, and The
consular convention, Tor future negotiation, the
second article gave them sort OF quasi revival.
In 1898, those burdensome treaties had been an
initiated; and sound policy required that they
should not be renewed. There was, consequent.
w. insuperabe objection 10 The ratification of The
treaty with this constructive revival But, il this
clause in the second article were stricken out,
France would not permit the subject Of indemni-
ties 10 be reta ned for future discussion. The ques
ton then presented TO the Senate was shall the
IDENTITIES, or shall The nation be plunged into
renewal OF the war, on account OF those claims.
For my own part, am satisfied that The Senate
acted wisely and Justly. The Government had
exhausted The resources OF diplomacy, and had
used all the coercive measures which sound poll
Cy would authorize Tor the purpose oil redresslng
the spoiation-but without avail. There mus
OF necessity be period 10 It's eXerlions, and il
was Tor The Government 10 determine when that
period had arrived. In 1875 il ceased 10 contend
for satisfaction for British spoialions under the
Orders in Council, and concluded treaty with
Great Britain in which there was no provision
Tor those spoIialions. YET it has never been sup
posed that we had assumed, BY The treaty Of GhenI
10 indemnify those who suffered by them The
right was equally UNREASONABLE in 1900 10 re-
linqush their efforts 10 obtain redress for French
spolalions, without, in this case any more than
the other, assuming to indemnify. That for this
The Government obtained no con-
sdelaton, it is, | falter myself, now unne-
cessary to repeat-since the only consider
alton ever asserted 10 have been received, is
the abrogation of The treaties, and that, as have
sufficiently shown, was effected not BY The treaty
OF 1900, but by the resolution Of the Tth July,
1893
II any farther evidence be required, 10 satisfy
every one that no assumption OF The indemnies
was designed in the Treaty of 1900, il will be
found in the TACT, that there was no effort n The
time, by either branch OF the Treaty-naking
power, 10 have that assumption recognised BY the
whole Government. Indeed, 1.-THE position ofthe
be correct, the President and Senate
were first guilty Of extreme touy in assuming the
indemnilies at all, and then guilty of equal mi
guilty in not attempting 10 carry out that assump-
lion in good faith.
This article has already filled SO much more
space than ! had expected, that must close with
Out completing The view that designed TO present
0UESTOR.
Correspondence OF the Baltimore SUM-
WASHINGTON, Sept. 9, 1916.
The telegraph will have apprzed you Of the