The southern press. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1850-1852, 1851-01-25


Senate now by more particular reference 70
them. If any one, however, wishes to pursue
the subject further he will find it especially laid
down in Vatte, who declares that it is ground
for abrogating treaty. And he will find II
well argued by Lord Liverpool in the discourse
TO which have referred.
But the senator from Connecticut, Mr.
SMrrH,] with some ingenuity, said that while lac
would admit it was ground for abrogating
one treaty that portion Of it's stipulations had
been violated by the other contracting party,
yet it was not ground for abrogating two trea.
ties, one Of which never had been violated and
he referred to some dctum which he found
somewhere in that correspondence have not
looked into it, but have no doubt it may be
found laid down, us it was laid down in effect
! by our Supreme Court, in case which came
up from New Haven Ito be found, l think, in 3
Wheat0n,) that it does not follow from the
right to abolish one treaty that therefore all trea
ties may be abolished, because they specify
cases in which war itself is not considered to
put an end to treaty. | need not specify or
recapitulate them but imagine he can find it
nowhere laid down that the violation by one OF
the contracting parties of one treaty can never
justify the other contracting party in putting an
end to all treaties. On the contrary, the reverse
is expressly laid down by Vattel, Civ. 2, chap
! Is, sec 2Oi, and laid down with reason.
| II the violation of one treaty would justify
nation in going to war, as undoubtedly it may
and war puts an end to all treates--shall it be
said that while it would authorize us to 60 to
war, it would not justify lesser stept would
not Justify us in saying that without making war
we will abrogate all treaties between US, as you
do not keep yours, and place ourselves in our
true relations, according to the laws OF ma
tons But the right is laid down explicitly in
these elementary writer's to whom have just
referred If this BIO the case, we had the right
to abrogate these treaties provided the French
had committed these wrongs. Need recapitu-
late them? They commenced in 1893, laying
embargoes on our vessels, seizing them when
loaded with provision or enemys goods, and
carrying them into their ports, ". Marsh. Wash,
note KID in express violation Of the treaty, thus
taking from us our privilege under the treaty Of
amity and commerce, that, us between the two
nations, free ships should make free goods.
They also seized our ships for want OF role
deq1ipage--a form of certificate peculiar to
observation-disclosures the treaty evidently con-
tempated that these vessels should 90 free when
they had the necessary sea letters, made out ac-
cordng to the forms OF the respective nations.
To cap the climax, they proclaimed to the world
that they would treat neutral nations as they
permitted the English to treat them, and they
| undertook to do so without regard to treaties or
the laws of nations. They did all this, and
more which need not be repeated. Unless it
can be shown, as they did not show, that this
| was retaliation, and just retaliation, for
wrongs which we had committed upon them
they were such violations Of treaty stipulations
as justified us ia putting end to all the treaties
then subssting between us; aud, if we were
justified in putting an end to these treaties as
they then existed in 1898, it follows clearly they
were not in existence in 1900. This follows
clearly, because we have it, on the authority Of
i NJ Roederer, one Of the French commissioners
who negotiated the convention of 1900 (see re-
port, page 2, lately published as extract from
Code DiplomAique,) that the United States COM
missioner felt bound by the act of Congress
| and never did admit for moment that tht
treaties were in force The American negotia
tors, says NJ. Roederer, considered themsclve:
! bound by the act of Congress which had de
cared the treaties null and decaded that it wa,
/ impossible they could recognise them. If tht
treaties, then, were not in force, there was no
thing upon which the French could found these
pretensions. If they had no valid pretensions
then there is no valuable consideration in ex
change for which We could have sacrificed these
claims.
| know that in some of the speeches on this
subject it has been urged thatthe treaty of peace
the convention of 1900, was one of the consid-
erations for which we sacrificed these claims
But whoever will look TO its history will find
that such was far from the fact. Ii was ratified
by the French government when it contained
the original second article. That article pro-
vided that we should negotiate hereafter in re-
lation to those ndemnitcs This showed clearly
that the French were willing to give US this
treaty, and put an end to hostilities, whether
we did or did not abandon those claims The
only pretcnce of valuable consideration is to
be found in these pretensions to which have
just referred, and which have examined
/ But, sir, there is one position which, if sue
cessfully maintained, would perhaps be fatal to
the argument which have made against the
existence of treaty obligations in 1900, as be-
tween the United States and France; and that
is, that the violation of treaty stipulations by
the French was but a just retaliation for wrongs
committed by us on them. That is the ques
ton which now propose to examine lsthink
! | can show that there were no wrongs on our
part Of which they had any right to make
serious complaint They complained because
we did not grant to them the pretensions Of
which have spoken ! need not recaptulate
/ Tue uiS VII tiidt putStiVi. We ulu no
wrong to them, because we did not grant such
extravagant pretensions. They complained, too
of Jays treaty, because they said we suffered
the English to give us less than our rights under
the laws of nations, because we suffered the
| English TO treat us worse than the French
treated us under their treaty of amity and COM
merce.
] According to their treaty free ships made free
goods, and according to Jiy's treaty the Eng
fish had right to seize enemy's goods in neu-
trail ships--a matter which gave them no just
grounds of complaint, because it was provi.
sion strictly in accordance with the laws of ma
tions, as all authorities show. They also COM
planned that we had suffered provisions to be
made contraband. The fact of the ease was that
there was at that day controverted point in the
practice of nations in relation to this law Of con-
traband as applied to pr visions. We settled
| it with England by compromise. We did not
exactly declare provisions contraband; but we
| allowed the British to prevent our vessels when
loaded with provisions, from entering French
ports, but they were not allowed to seize the
| l. H..