Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1849-10-05


The extracts now quoted.
Eriraet from Mr.. Russ despatch 10 The Primo
de i'oignao. dated Paris, May 26, 1880.
ut is important, however, 10 present The lru
stale of The question which has now arisen, and
beg leave 10 invoke your ExceIlencys serious al
tention 10 il. The citizens Of the United Stale
have sustain ed The most fl. gent aud unwarrant
aote Drongs from The authorities OF France; lhei
properly, 10 large amount, has been forci6l,
taken aDdy from them. in riolation alike of III
PT,netpes Of PutIic lao AND THE FAITH CT TREA
TIES, and that properly has been applied TO de
Tray the expenses and 10 aid The resources OF The
French nation. These facts have no and can
not be denied. When The Government OF lht
unHed Siaies demands restitution or indemnify
U'A nr Ere 0sney ansUsr: However true il i.
lhal your property has been isples,ly and lc,ong
fully wfesed from you, zoe mil net restore IL ul
make you any indemni6calion Tor il. unl. s. ycu
will first admit our Interpretation of the eighth
article OF the Louisiana Treaty. though you
may believe that Interpretation 10 be ailoeehe!
uhfoundtd3" Governments ACT under The sanction
OF moral responsibility, as well as individuals
a'd II is therefore allowable 10 test their pro.
ceedinss BY The same principles which would be
applied to the conduct Of individuals in similar
circumstances. | may therefore, be permitted to
ask your Excellency WHAT JuneM.HT THE No.
hAL SENSE MANKIND WOULD promo SCE ON TIE
CONDUCT CT AN INDIVIDUAL WHO, BEING WRONG
Fully IN SESSION CT THE PROPERTY OF AN
OTHER, should answer demand OF restitution by
saying, 1T IS TRUE HAVE POSSESSION CT your
PROPERTY, WHICH HAS BEEN wRoHdYULLY TAKEN
PROM YcU; but | WILL NOT GIVE 1T Up unless
you hrst assent TO my construction, HOWEVER
ERRoNE, Us You BELIEVE 1T, CT THE cosTR act pE.
TWEEN Us. about which We have so lor differed
in opilio1
"Your rxcellency will not, presume s'ek
10 EvADE the force of this statement by scy!rg
that tie aorongs II ieh'ch Tie United Sta;,,e N
p ain we're not committed by the present 20.
,ernment of France &c, sc.
Again. from he SAM despatch:
ut is not, surely, by pr,tsn:iot of hi: 50,
That the loyalty Of his majesty's government
will seek to OF set The just reclamaiions of our
citizens for ths fragrant and uadeaiable urongs
of which they have been the victims. Are The
members If friendly nation nsver to be in.
IDENTIFIED for property Of which they have been
| deprived by The most lawIess acts because the
governments of the Two countries cannot agree
in their construction Of some compact between
them 10 relation 10 different ma,terl Where
is the relation or dependence between the two
questionsi Is it the less true that the citizens
injuries from he authorities Of France, for
which they sre entitled 10 redress, tecause The
government of The United States cannot per-
suade itself that the Interpretation which France
chooses 20 put on the eighth article Of the LOU
i'ana treaty is correc,7 II a sSrsreign govsrnment
can hss areid i's Obligations then al n.tiOnal
justice Is an iHusion, for nothing more would be
necessary TO repel the most inconteslable
claims, but for the government Of which they
are demanded 10 "a Sc some dispuidb: pretsn,ien
agsiah The sors,nmsat nj the claimants; III
more a,jounded the better, as it would be so
much more impossible for the latter TO admit ii.
"Bul your excelIency tells me Tia, the rights
of our ci liens are 10 be withheld as reprisal
upon he United States Tor not admitting the in-
terpretaIion which France puts ON the eighth ar
licle OF The Louisiana treaty. In what code OF
national law this doctrine oil reprsal is 10 be
found am al a loss 10 know. Is reprisal, then,
a legitimate remedy for difference OF opinion
Has ore party 10 compact an exclusive right
OF Interpretation, which i, can enforce BY penal
sircu d ucc6 Iuc--a uCoIuS WIN tn1 pTy ss.ot "
moderation With accompanies It, or in what light
il must be viewed by governne which, SIN
cerely desiring the maintenance OF The most
friendly relations with that OF his Majesty, has
NOT teen waning in the proposition of amicable
tween them. a perseverance, in this pas tion can
be regarded in no other light haH as final de-
NAL Of The justics Whhh has been 30 long sought
far the rrengs o(onr citizens. entertain trn
confidence that your excellency's enlightened
sense of Justice, apd tie p:l known ioys'fy 81 ms
INajo,tyf gOosrnmcn', uiA are,t such result !"
E1,,a,t from Prime. Poiignnes despstci 10 Mr.
Rires, ta.:d June Is 1880.
nI will mol push further The discussion oil Inc
Messages of YOUR letter which have appeared 10
me susceptible of refulalion. Many Others also
might furnish ground Tor observations, on my
pari, but have thought il sufficient 10 comodt
those which tended 10 accuse OF Inconsistency
and contradiction the course pursued by France
in This prolonged negotiation. think have
comnletely vindcaied, in that Respect The policy
Of The Kings government. am anxious Tor me
| lime sir, when we may bu!h advance iIanKy
in direction better suiled 10 lead TO an accom-,
mediation, and with grea, reluctance only would
| return TO system OF rcproaches ala reciim'
nations OF which The only possible result Is 10
| remove Turner and further Inc end we are oo'i
| equally soliciious 10 attain. You are 100 en-
Iish,ened moi 10 feel that, il it is possible for each
| of orr Two governments 10 find, in the numer.
| Gus papers OF correspondence Of thirteen years
duration, III means of embarrassing lis acver'
sary; OF enlrapping him, 10 certain extent, 10
| his own words; such a triumph Woua De as M
lie glorious rs il would be useless 10 the success
OF our claims. do NOT fear such contest
will sustain il, il must; but prefer 10 nope
that a new direction given 10 neeonaiioh mere
totore so truitIess, will enable US 10 lanor more
efeclualy 10 satisfy The interests confided 10 u.s.
Extract from Mr.. Riuss's despatch 10 Prince 10
hsnac d,ed Paris, June 25, 1880.
The Sentiments expressed in the Close oil your
| excelleGcy's communication are lecIpIocalet
with an entire and hearty concurrence. Nothing
can be more remote from The wishes OF The gov
eminent Of the United States, than 10 enter into
a system Of reproach ard recrimrnahon. ~
Mould Re as uabeeoming its o0a Character as IN
consistent uith the ,espcet iohich u ases1ssy 9"
tsrfains for tia. of his m jestys sooernmsnt.-
The language # rsproaeh M:refore. u n ocr . =
and n,rer uiH employ. Il, al any tune, u pa
dwell with earne.lness on particular idc's, WIZ
| seem 10 carry in themselves sentence VI ie-
nroach. il bss WAYS been with reluctance, ant
only in reply 10 observations male on ocnali D
his m.iesiys government, oil tone ana cnaia.
Ter SO strongly marked as 10 reneel u iinPoSs'o''
10 PASS Them in silence. learn, therefore, wiz
sincere salis!scioD, that, SO far as depends o.
your excsllepcy, there will te no further occasion
for unnleasant discussion; and that your exec!
lercy sincerely wishes for The time when we ma.
advance in ways btter calculated 10 lead 10 &C
commoda,on."
lin July, 1880, Charlie. X was e5 s ed s an
Louis Philippe made King Of The french, an an
The negotiations were renewed with his minis
lers 9.
E,,rost from Mr. Rivers 9tspatek TO NJ Ida Buren,, sec
r,to,v Of State datd Paris, Hpra23, 1851, giciSg
,eeount Of an stsrrep and bal conferences Win Coua
Ssba,tisni, the Msi,sr Of Lonis Philippe ana the cys
of the Coaatto pay fifteen mOss Of francs for he 'p0"'
ii replied TO him that was altogether aa0n''h
ed al such a proposition; that The government. :.
HE United States instead OF seeing in II an evl
dence OF good faith could regard j! In no ONE
Iieht ,hs n as a mocks,y, and equivalent 10 an a!
,slut rerusal Of justice; lha. il il was 10 De con
sidered as Definite propo sition on M parl
I Elance had only 10 say that the negoialio
was a. an end; and that il would be for each &c
yernment to recur 10 lis rights. and il, ssnss Of
oicn dignity and honor u.,s,
though, il far from being an unreasonable oh'
and that must reflect upon it.
t." replied that such proposition u'a nc n0' on II