The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1851-02-04

and The nsatss on the other "wsrs considered - OF
equivalent value and the latter that the release oil the
one "a valuable consideration" for the release o.
The other. He will also lind HIMSELF confronted by Inc
opinion of Mr. Murray, one of The envoys who negotiated
The OF 1900 and eommss oned 10 exchange
the ra6cations OF ha, convention with France after the
suppression OF the I'd article by the Senate II Is well
Known thai The French government experienced some d-
feuy in accepting The convention ID lis amended form,
and that considerable discussion ensued on Tue return OF
IL 10 France While the question was pendlhg. Sf
Mauay under date OF July l. 1901, wrote to Mr.. Mad-
son az follows
To YOU sir. can say had been authorized to subscribe
viii always against each other by them and consider
Of tAs aams 20 treaties as rauao-Doe w.
But. notwithstanding all that Madison, Livingston. and
Murray have sa the honorable senator Will have hal
such cessation Uaiudbe Here becomes proper
to look lutte more narrowly lnlo TINS obJecuoh. ana
here Observe
l. il implies an admission that The United States in fact
discharged The claims, aud nists that such discharge was
without any sufficient motive, object or consideration
makes HE act OF our government wanton act, and
involves grave reproach against ihe au'hohues %
1900.
to undertake the prosecution OF these claims There was
both general and special obligation the former re-
suited from the relation OF the Stale 10 lis cuzens pro-
lection being due from the one IN return Tor te a,es
ance which is incumbent on the other and the latter
from the engagements of Mr. Jeersons circular IN 1898,
publicly given and confdingy accepted. The United
was their duty to execute with all possible fidelity La
this of the discharge and exonerae tue OPP
pose party, as is SAID without obtaining anything
either for ourselves or the claimants We place them Ia
such position that they have recourse to France
How il be said that they could not IN any event,
have obtained redress at her hands! Mr.. Livingston,
in his report H. III } says "Natons must not IN their
intercourse with each other be supposed capable of ia
grant injustice. Such principle would soon breaK all
those ties by which modern civilization has united them
II the French government at that period had dened the
iuSticA nf
depredaons, would not have iessened the justice anu
validity OF the claimants right against the successors IN
OF those who regardless OF the laws Of ma
lions and the faith OF treaties and at this moment but
Tor the act OF their own government, they might appeal
from the wrongs inflicted by republican France 10 The
Justice and magnanimy OF its monaTchlal rulers ouch
an appeal was in fact successfully made by the United
States from imperial 10 regal Frances and we obtained IN
1881. by Mr.. Rves's convention, indennilies TO the
amount OF 25 900 900 OF francs, hands OF The latter
Tor the awess depredalons OF the former under the Gel
cbrated Berlin and Milan DEGREES.
The language OF that convention is broad enough 10
com rrehend these spoliaton claims Some OF them were
presented to the board of commissioners sitting under
that convention but they decided that there pares were
not entitled TO participate in the fund 10 be distributed
that the United States had released and ds
charged France thereirom by the convention OF 1900
They not claims against France at the date OF the
convention of 1881 make this statement on the au-
thorty of the honorable Secretary OF State, Mr. Web
ser Under Such circumstances II IS not competent Tor
the United States 10 say we made bad bargain-we
gave up the claims for nothing They by the act OF dis
themselves
recourse be had to them could have
been had originally TO France.
3 Whether the pretensons of France were
not strictly valid is question which cannot now be
made 1t is enough to say she seriously advanced such
tensions and that these opposing claims The re-
lease OF the one under such circumstances was sufficient
consideration for the release OF the others You cannot
overhaul and reexamine the validity OF such claims 10
break up a compromise settlement on the principle o.
set-of-you cannot thus show want. OF consideration
This could not be done, between the United States
and In ha he laffe iiah M
bound by the adjustment, France would say y and
who could deny IL May not these claimants say the
same thing 10 the United States, with like effect!
L. The United States irde ed the preensions OF France
to be oil character TO constitute valuable cons'dera-
lon for our ENJOYS offered 10 purchase or buy them on
for no less than eight millions OF Francs We deem
(said the United Saes your Claims under the Treaties M
valid. You think otherwse therefore, being ANXIOUS
for adj slment we will pay the eight millions Tor
them. No responds France Then Gays the United
Saes) we will purchase out your preiensions by sur
rendry OF these spoilaon claims VIII you take the
one in exchange tor the other Yes replies France at
much doubt and hesitation II is TOO late for the
United States 10 claim that the discharge or release OF
France was without consideration Any great public OBJ
ject or benefit Is sufficient motive or consideration, and
French alliance, though the misconduct of France
had been such as 10 Justify ~ describing IT, constituted
such object or benefit
5 Nations have just good right TO purchase their
peace Individuals and in that object alone there is
sufficient consideration. From the adjustment OF 1900
government anticipated great advantages and those
were abunuantly realized VIII appear from the
following extract from letter dated April %, 1901, from
Mr. Lincoln, acting Secretary OF Slate, to Mi Murray
The beneficial effect Of ans the convention with France
extensively felt generally acknowledged On
ed into enecon Our called into Our trade
passing through eh.nne which have been INSTRUCTED and spread
which been Infested Our shipping produce
qacL demand former with France restored
and be already obtained her confirmation
The treaty which has IN part produced these lV2
.. so.
g. In this case the United States secured by the 4ib and
9Th articles certain collateral advantages which in them
selves constitute a sufficient reason motive Tor
leasing the claims. BY the 4h obtained resiora-
ton OF all the vessels then IN the hands of France, with
their cargoes, denitvely condemned. and by the 5h
payment and satisfaction for all The supply and embargo
cases. under The OF debts The supply cases were
IN fact contract and Il is well settled prn
clpe OF our government, that protection due TO
such cases The reason is ii we were To undertake to
assert the rights OF citizens under any contract
contracts which they may choose 10 make with foreign
States u would be IN their power 10 involve IN
at any ume at least to expose 10 the danger OF IL
Hence. il they will make such contracts, they do
their own hazard, and must act their response.
bIlity Ii is only claims for torts awess violence
which our government will prosecute 1t is remarka-
BILE fact that we, by the convention OF 1900, asserted
claims to which our protection was not due, by sacn-
hcng another class oil claims 10 which il clearly due
z. But by no admit that France had violated
both the treaties Of IT'S. Whatever there pon.
able N her course constituted Inracon OF the treaty
OF anity and commerce only The treaty OF all ance abe
had fuhlied to the letter She stipulated therein 10 make
with her good Offices, counsels and powers as 10
maintain cfectnaIly the liberty sovereignty and ndeend
encs, absolute and unlimed oil The United States that
she would make all the efforts in her power against the
common enemy, to attain the end proposed that she
would concur in all our enterprises. far cIcusan
ces would permit and would not make either peace or
truce with the British crown without our consent, nor
lay down her until the ndepe ndence OF the United