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

! Bass Us. Tingey, decided in August, lso0-[4
Dallas Rep. 37.l That was suit for salvage,
and it became necessary for the Court 10 decide
whether France was an "enemy" within the
meaning of the act of Congress. They una
uimously determined that ice 7rere IN state Of
uar. As having conclusive bearing upon the
subject, shall take the liberty to present an eI-
tract from the opinion of each Judge. Judge
Moore said: "If words are the representatives OF
ideas, let me ask, BY what other word The idea OF
the relative situation Of America and France
could be communicated, than by that OF hostility
or war; And how can the characters oil the par
lies engaged in hostility or war be otherwise de-
scribed Than by The denomination OF enemies q
II is for the honor and dignity OF both nations,
therefore, that they should be called enemies !;
for ii IS BY that description alone, that either could
justify or excuse the scene Of 6io0dsied, dspreda-
lion and conscaiiO irhich has unhappiiy occurred"
Judge Washington said: "Here, then, let me ask,
what were the technical characters OF an Anne
rcan and French armed vesse combating on The
high seas with view the one TO subdue The other,
and TO make prize OF his propeuyl They GER
tainly were not friendly because there was a
contention by force; nsr were they private enc
mics, because the contention was external, and
authorised BY the legitimate authority OF the TWO
Governments. Ii they were not our enemies |
know not what constitutes an enemy. I.
In fact and in Ian me arc al lray" Judge Chase
said: $50 far il is unquesionably partial war;
bui, nevertheless il is public war on account Of
The public authority from which il emanales."-
Judge Paterson said: III is maritime war-a
war al sea as 10 certain purposes. Il is
therefore, public war between the two nations,
qualified on our part, in the manner prescribed by
The constitutional organ Of our country"
War, then, the most efficient remedy which a
an cd n
Laehes can be imputed 10 the Government
But there is another view, which have not
room now 10 do, more than suggest and must
leave The reader 10 enlarge upon il for himself. 1t
was in the year 1886 that the principal spoia-
lions commenced. II will be recollecled By those
who attended 10 the narrative presented in my
first number, that in consequence OF our complete
adoption OF jays Treaty in that year. the French
Government openly and aVowedly authorized
those dcpredaions. They were in The nature Of
retalialory measures They con- equenty placed
a. in slate Of quasi war. From lI9s, 10 the
date ot the Treaty in 1900, il any credcice IS to
be given 10 The decisions OF orr highest Judicial
tribunal, We were in state Of actual war. In
assuming those claims, then, do we not adopt the
principle, that the ravages OF var are 10 be re-
paired al The public expense, and that the losses Of
individuals, during a state OF hostility, are 10 be
UNIDENTIFIED out vi the common Treasury III
This monslrous doctrine is 10 he acted upon, let
equal justice be observed see no reason for
discriminating in favor 0i those who suffered 10
The French, and against those who suffered in the
English war
In truth, there is no peculiar equity 10 support
he claims Of indemnify Tor the French depreda-
tons. The principal claimants, as have already
stated on the authority Of Mr.. Tazewel, are in
surance companies. What was IT that they in
sured against, but those very ossesl The pre-
MUM must have been propurlionably high, and
in those premiums they may be said 10 have been
sufficiently Unidentified. They entered into this
SORT Of gambling speculation, and now, with
their gains in one hand, with the other they pre-
burse their losses. Truly, spolialion is thriving
business for them. The same argument may be
extended 10 the case Of those who were not in
sured. They knowingly, and wiltulIy, encoun-
tered The risk and, perhaps, were compensated
for their losses by The extraordinary profits OF
their successful ventures. The producer was the
real sufferer, and he has no claim 10 present
have now completed what | proposed TO say
on this subject. DO not know. that ! owe an
apology for the length al which il has been con-
sidered The subject is OF very high importance,
involving much larger interest than is apparent
on The face OF the r.tosd bill. This, II IS mani
test, is mere entering wedge. The claims ior
indemnify if fully audited, would, perhaps,
amount 10 twenty millions. Payment Of por-
lion, would operate an acknowledgment Of the
Justice ofthe whole. And the honor OF the ma
lion would be appealed 10, and properly appealed
to, for full discharge. We are not YET reduced
10 such financial straits that we have 10 COM
pound our debts at one fourth OF their value
Governments should be as scrupuous 10 dispense
Justice as 10 refuse favors. QUASIOR.