The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1849-09-30

Historical Narrative OF tine Diplomacy Of 1881.
We submitted yesterday an article from the New York
Cronica. which embraces account Of Mr. Rvess for.
mer negotiation in France. The following communica
ton will serve TO clear up the in that statement
and to set forth the facts as they occurred.
Mr.. Rivss IN France.
The following extracts from the public document.
light on the question of diplomatic courtesy and euuels
involved in the affair between M Poussin and Mr. Cav
ton They may be useful TO refer TO hereafter, and are
besides, quite pertinent and german 10 the present dm
Guilty between the French minister and Mr. Clayton IN.
asmuch they taken from the correspondence be-
tween Mr. Rves the ambassador OF the present admin
isration to France. Ii would that Mr. Clayton il
he considered the question: did not regard the character
OF MIR, Rves's letters TO the French government when
formerly minister Of the United States there. aodng
any jus, cause Of offence % the French people BY
or that his appointment might be preudcia TO the inter
ests OF the United States and disturb the harmony Our
relations with France II is presumed Gen. Taylor had
not distinct knowledge OF the occurrences between s2e
and 1886 touching our relations with France, and is in
nocen OF anything worse than want OF such knowledge
Surely could not have been the desire OF this peace
loving administration. and especially OF its peace loving
head to excite and provoke the French people to anmos
lily towards and difficulty with the United States by send
ing as minister to them gentleman who had in their
view insulted them BY the employment Of dscoureons
undplomatc, and offensive language towards their gov
ernment And yet Mr.. ClaytoIis course towards M
Poussn involves the administration, or at least Mr. Clay
as to the terms employed in the correspondence OF Mr.
Rves Il is not necessary that should do so. But ali
must be struck with the extraordinary similarity of Ian.
guage, and the close identity OF the accusatory nsinl
uatiop against the administration, or rather against
Mr.. Clayton, in NJ Poussin's letter, alleged to Be
grossly offensive and insulting to the United States
and that contained in Mr. Rivess letters to The
French ministry in the extracts quote So remark
able is the identity, that it allows the inference that
Poussin had Mr.. Rivess letters before him when he
wrote his notes to Mr. Cayton and, in fact may have
borrowed the terms used by him from them IT, farthe
il should turn out that the mpocy and improperly of The
appointment Of Mr.. Rves to France suggested MI
Mr. G. was not inclined to regard the style and character
OF Mr.. Rivess correspondence with the French gov.
eminent as aording any just ground OF objection to Mr.
by the French government, his conduct towards NJ
Poussn in employing nearly the same language 10
the United States, and in flying into such undigni6ed
passion account Of it, is NOT merely inconsistent but
may be that Mr. Clayton has committed bunder that
win afford the French government decided advantage
over him. The people OF the United States will demand
to know the facts as to the selection OF Mr. r., and
whether Mr. c. was forewarned by Mr. p OF the poba.
BILE unpleasant result oil IL and ii would be interesting
to know also il such expression was induced by inquiries
Of Mr.. c., voluntarily made by the French minister
as there are rumors both ways. II voluntarily the
part of Mr. p, and unsoughi for by Mr.. c., STILL under
the srctest rules of diplomatic decorum they were proper
and unobecuonable We doubt not that the French
government, as demonstration of its desire to have
amcabe relations with the United States, has, in the
first instance overlooked the objection as to Mr. Ryess
former correspondence, and that he has been received
IT, however, the information OF NJ Poussins dsnis.
sal by Mr.. Clayton, the French government should send
MIR. Rives has passports, placing him precisely the
same category as Mr. Clayton has placed Mr. p, and .
give his former letters cause, and additional
ground his letter OF July, 1881, to Mr. Livingston Mr.
Clayton cannot complain without subjectng himself
ridcule. He will be estopped by his own act as to
Poussin Indeed we should not be surprised if, after ALL
Mr. Clayton and Mr. Riyes should be exhibited as he
M. de Tocqueyille and M Poussin, and of course !
a men an As Of Mr. RVes appoint
II will be recolieced that Mr. Rves was sent as min
ister to France by President Jackson in 1922 when
Charles x was on the throne. There were then four
subjects of negotiation between the two governments
4. The spolations by the French upon our commerce
prior to 1909 not before settled for and others under the
Berlin and Milan decrees for which demanded some
seventy millions OF francs about fourteen mllionso i
dollars. q The Beaumarchas claim against the United
States for several millions OF francs for advances and aid
In the revolutionary war: 8. The French government !
complained that the United States had not faithfully fu
filled the Louisiana treaty, as to French grants Of
lands in the coded territory a. The French government
demanded indemnity OF the United States for the alleged
OF the sh article of the same treaty, al
lowing French vessels privileges to the MISSISSIPPI
trade, and respecting the construction OF which article Inc
two governments did not agree.
The French government insisted on the discussion and
settlement oil all those questions together and the United
States insisted on the separate discussion and settlement
OF the first question. This explanation is made TO ena
Ole all to understand the extracts now quoted
Extract from Mr. Rfvos dsspafeh to the Prince de Pc
hgmae, dated Paris, May 26. 1880.
II is important however present the true state OF the
question which has arisen and beg leave 70 invoke
your excellency's serious attention H. The citizens Of
the United States have sustained the most Aaeauf
nnadrfaoH uTowgs from the authorities Of France their
rom dem IN vioiafioa ae 81 0 pria.e epp ~
AND THE TREATIES, and that property has been
applied TO defray the expenses and aid the resources
ienied When the government Of the United States de-
nands restitution Indemnity H yow sreseney
however true IL is that yoi property has been avts
.nd mongMy wrested IRON you, os rcM not resiorao
make you any decentralization fof II, unless you will first
idmit our Interpretation Of the eighth LOUIS
ma treaty, though you may believe that Interpretation
- % an,o1nded VI Governments act under me
Ind II Is therefore allowable test their proceedings
he same principles which would be applied TO the conduct
y indivlduals IN similar circumstances. may, Therefore
20 permitted TO ask your exceIIency schaf judgment the
moral SENSE OF mankind pohd grononHcf conduct ofa~
ndridnai wso being wrorg yoaeasom Of the properly
a"otner should answer demand OF restitution BY say
ng, ueeI mare pose"ion Of property, phioh has
cen wrongfhy taken from you but WILL II
MESS you hrst assent 70 construction, roneou
on oeiepe u, hs contract becse~ ns, about which We
AYE SO long differed In opinion
your exceency will not, presume, seek the
prce o. hs statement by saying that the Of rch the
overnment Of France, &c, &c. III
Again, from the same dcspafch -
IL Is not surely by aetsssion Of this that the 10y
ly oil his MaJcsys government will Offset Just
ecsmaons OF our citizens Tor che sagrau and pndeniak
'rongs OF which they have been the victims. Are the
nembers ola friendly nation nsper 10 te unidentified
roPerV oil which they have been deprived by the most
'wless acts, because the of the counties
veen them in relation TO a different matter Where /.
le relation or dependence between the two questions