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

and full Of interest. The decision olthe Supreme
Court settles The whole question:
For The Enquirer.
VETO OF TIE FRENCH SPOLlATION BILL.
No. ILL.,
II is essential 10 the case Of The claimants that
il should appear that The Government has derived
some benefit from their losses. | took some
pains in iorner number 10 relute their principal
assumption Il This SORT There ale one or Two
other points which have thought might be wur-
thy ol notice.
Ii has beer said, that an apprehension Of be-
ing required o fulfil the slpulalions Of The treaty
Of alliance ter the guaranty OF the French West
Indian possessions, prevented our Government
from exaclins from France a sIric, observance Of
the treaty OF commerce, by which the spoliations
complained Of would have been arrested. do
not know lha: this would be worthy OF attention,
were il not found in SO respectable place as the
report oil committee OF The Senate Of The U.
States. Thus sustained, however, hope that
shall be excused for occupying The attention oil
The reader with ar exposition oi lis inaccuracy.
Such a fear ought mol, and did moi, influence the
measures Of Government The cdsns f9aeTH I'M
der the treaty OF alliance had not arisen, and
France had no right 10 require the performance
OF The guarantee stipulation. Our alliance with
France was defensive only, and the right 10 call
Tor the guarantee could only arise in defensive
war. The war in which she was then engaged
was offensive; she having been The first, in point
OF time TO declare war; and that being the usual
criterion by which war is decided 10 be ofen-
sye or defensive. These positions are we'll
founded in the principles OF national law. l
shall enter into no reasoning OF my own 10 sustain
them. am difident of offering reflections on
subject which has been exhausted by able and
informed minds The reader who requires
hi.h legal authority is referred 10 kents Com
men,aries volume l, page so. In accordance
with this view, General Washington had de-
lcrmined upon his course as to the guarantee
when he issued his proclamation OF neutrality.
His Biugrapher says, "W ashingIon's procama-
ton Of neutrality was novelty in the political
world. Ii was, however, the wisest measure, as
adapted TO the circumstances that history records.
Il accomplished The purpose for which it was in
Tended and that purpose was one oil The best and
mos, salutary OF which any nation had ever e.
perenced the benefit. II was intended 10 prevent
The French Minister from demanding The per-
formance of the guarantee cona ned in the treaty
OF alliance, and il was admirably calculated 10
prepare the minds Of The people Tor approving OF
| The refusal which, il he made The demand, Wash
| ington was resolved 10 give him." We have oth-
ciaI testimony oil the same purport. Mr.. Edmund
| Randolph, Washington's Secretary OF State, in a
communication 10 Mr.. Monroe, then Minister 10
| France declares that "as every political motive
dissuadcd us from war, so we were without an
obligation 10 enler into ii, as a party; no easus
| f0sdeT,s had arisen upon our alliance with France.
IL NAV be- added that The same position is ASST
med by MIR. Pickering, Secretary OF State under
The succeeding administration. France seems
moi 10 have been unwilling TO acquiesce in The
course of the administration. Mr.. Genet, the
1 French Minister, arrived al The seat OF govern
ment, and was presented 10 The President aler the
publication Of The proclamation OF neutrality,
which. as is said, indicated The views Of The Exc
culiye. In the conversation which then took
place. Mr.. Genet gave The most explicit assuran-
| ces that. in consequence OF the distance OF The U
| States from the theatre Of action and OF other
| circumstances, France did not wish 10 engage
them in the war, bul il would willingly leave
Them 10 pursue their happiness and prosperity in
His successor, Mr. Fauche repeatedly assured
The American government, that The policy Of
France did not require The performance of The
guarantee, since we should be less advantageous
10 them by associaling in The war, than in our neu
trail character.
We thus perceive that France hadno right, un-
der The law of nations, 10 require The perform
ance of The guarantee; that the Administration
we're prepared 10 refuse the request, had il been
made; and, finally, that France did not desire &c
make such demand. Is il not, then, violent
presumption To say, that The Government were
detained from their duty by any apprehension
upon this subject? Such supposilion impuct
the limdny OF guilt, trembling at imaginary dan
gers, instead OF the firmness oil conscious rect
Jude In repeing il, we discharge sacred Of
flee; we defend the good faith and the integrity
of George Washington The splendor OF the
fairest ornament upon our history is clouded, The
moment We establish that George Washington
formed resolutions where the iaih Of treaties was
concerned, upon which he feared 10 ACT
Fortunately there is official testimony al hanG
sufficient 10 explode This notion. | can discover
but a single instance in which there was mani
tested any disposition 10 require OF France ri
gid observance OF the treaty, and that is the only
one referred to by those who contend thai the eff
forts Of the Government were embarrassed By
their fears about the guarantee. Mr.. Monroe
in one OF his letters informs The Secretary OF STATE
"lhai he fell extremely embarrassed how 10 touch
again their infringement OF The treaty OF com
merce; whether TO call on Them TO execute il, o
leave that question on The ground on which HI
had first placed it,"
In conference with one OF the French Minis
ters, the question was directly put TO MIR. Monroe
"Do you insist on our executing The treaty2"-
This he Tor The moment evaded, but 1t was per
emplorly urged again-Mr. Monroe then an
swers, that he was not instructed BY The Presi
dent TO insist upon it, nor did he insist upon it
and he avows that one OF his motives was, lies
it might excite a disposition 10 press US upol
other points, on which il were better 10 avoid an
discussion" All this is imposingly set forth, b
a committee Of The Senate, in support OF IN
position which we are now considering; and viii
a degree of desingenuity, which, in that quarter
is truly astonishing, they pass without notice, III
highly important fact, that Mr.. Monroe's cours
was disavowed by his government Five day
after The receipt otthe despatch referred TO above
The Secretary of Stale (acting under Washing
ton,) writes 10 MIR. Monroe censuring his course
and inslruc,ing him Immediately 10 insist on III
execution OF The treaty, and the repeal of the de