The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1846-09-14


ed, not TO procure the abolition of those treaties Out
not 10 consent 10 their revival Our own la1 OF 'uy
7th, 1885, had already relieved US from the ourush
Of the treaties. Under the law OF nations, we nap
perfect right to annu them by that declaration vat
tel explicitly announces the principle. lie says;
"The party who is offended or injured in those par
tculars which constitute the basis of the treaty. Is
at liberty 10 choose the alternative or competing
faithess ally TO fulfil his engagements, or OF ds.
eiaring The treaty dissolved by his violation OF H.
Il is a power to be exercised only by decaIeuon'
4 The exercise Of this power by the United States,
in the solemn declaration that "they were of right
freed and exonerated from the stipulations OF the
treaties" and "that the shall not hencetorth
be regarded as legally obligatory" operated full,
complete and perpetual abolition Of them. The as
sent of France was wholly immaterial, a matter
about which we were so Indifferent, that our MIN
listers not even instructed to ask for it, To
declare violated treaty null, is an act to which
every sovereignty is competent And whether the
treaty has been violated by the other party, Is
subject upon which each nation must determine for
itself lfit act upon insufficient grounds It's act OF
abrogation is not less valid than would be decara-
ton Of war for an unjust cause. But do not ask
that others should be guided by the feeble lights oil
my own reasoning upon the subject. have a
direct authority, which must command the unhes-
tating respect OF every one who reyeres genius and
learning. Chancellor Kent unequivoeally asserts
the principle and in illustration, cites the very In
cdent which we are now considering. quote his
own words: "The violation Of any single article
oyerthrows the whole treaty if the injured party
elects so to consider il. W. haze strong instance
IN history Of the annihiLaion Of treaties BY
the act Of The injured party. In 1898, the COnsrsss u
the United States declared that The treaties Oith France
.0as no longer obligatory" The treaties being an
initiated by the law of 1898, it was not in our pow
err, had II been desire, to recall that act To an
initiate treaty day and resusciate it the next,
by the act OF the same party, is sort OF solemn
trlhlng, not recognised in the code Of national
law. Consequently, at the date of the negotia-
| ton, In $500, those treaties were utterly extinct.
When with this fact before u.s. we look at the bold
assumption Of these people, that their claims
were made the instruments Of extnguishing
The extinct treaties, we are forcibly reminded Of
Falstat, with Hotspurs corpse upon his shoulders,
demanding TO be made carl duke, at the
least, for killing the dead Percy. The thing is not
TO be tolerated IL they correct, then should we
have to convict our government Of the unheard Of
folly and extrayagance Of assuming claims asanst
| France TO the amount Of many millions, for the idle
purpose OF obtaining her assent TO an act which was
perfect and complete without it, We shall also
have TO render the compliment to French diplo-
macy, that they succeeded in obtaining millions for
object 1.-THE assent Of France the abrogation Of
the treates) without value TO US, and about which,
IN the opening OF the negotiation, we were so pro-
foundly Indifferent that did not even ask for IT,
Mr. Adams recently expressed wish that the Ore
gon treaty would leave room for a suit in chancery
for the navigation Of the Columbia. II the claim
ants can make out their position, certainly might
90 into chancery, and avoid the convention of 1900,
on the ground of unheard Of imposition the part
Of the French, and equally novel imbecility ours.
This notion Of our having received valuable con-
sderation for relinquishing the indemnities, must
| be abandoned.
By reference to the documents relating to this
subject, 1t may be that this very proposition
| that we should assume the indemnities, in consid-
Of tha nah II, IL.
toas proposed by France, aud promptly and unanimously
rejected by the american enjoys On the 4th Septem
| Der, 1900, the French commissioners proposed that
the United States should discharge the indemnities
and that France would renounce the privileges Of
the treaties. On the 6h the American ministers in
form them that they are unanimous in the opinion
hat they could not aecede to this proposition This
| fact is worthy of remark.
The course of the Senate in retrenching the sec
ond article, admits Of easy explanation, without re-
| sorting TO the extraordinary suppositon Of an as
sumption OF the indemnities. BY reserving the
treaties ofaliance and Of commerce. and the consul
lar convention, for future negotiation the second ar
ticle gave them sort of quasi revival. In 1898,
those burdensome treaties had been annihilated; and
sound policy required that they should not be re-
newed. There was, consequently, insuperable OBJ
lection to the ratification of the treaty with this con-
structive revival But if this clause in the second
articleIwere stricken out, France would not permit
the subject of indemntes to be retained for future
discussion. The question then presented to the
Senate was, shall the convention be ratified without
provision for the indemnities or shall the nation
he 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 govern
ment had exhausted the resources Of diplomacy and
had used all the coercive which sound pol
icy would authorize for the purpose of redressing
the spoliation; but without avail. There must of
necessity be period to its exertions and it for
the government to determine when that DeriOd Ind
arrived. In 1875 il ceased to contend for satisfac-
ton for British spolaons under the orders in coun-
Gil, and concluded treaty with Great Britain in
which there was no provision for those spoliations
Yet il has never been supposed that we had assumed
by the treaty of Client to indemnify those who suf-
fered by them. The right equally unguestion-
able in 1900 to renquish their efforts to obtain re-
dress for French spoliatons without, in this case
any more than the other, assuming to indemnify
That for this REIMBURSEMENT the government obtain
ed no consideration, it is, l fatter myself,
necessary to repeat, since the only consideration
ever asserted to have been received, is the abroga
ton of the treaties, ard that, as have sufficiently
shown, was effected not by the treaty of 1900, but
by the resolution Of the 7th July, 1893.
If any farther evidence be required satisfy eve
ry one that no assumption of the indemnities was
designed in the treaty Of 1900, it will be found in
the fact that there effort at the time by either
branch of the treatymaking power, to have that as
sumption recognised by the whole government. In
deed, if the position of the claimants be correct the
President and Senate were first guilty of extreme
folly in assuming the indemnities at all, and then
guilty of equal iniquity in not attempting to carry
out that assumption in good faith
This article has already filed so much more space
than had expected, that must close without COM
QUEsToR.
nRAwN NUMBERS OF the Alexandria