The southern press. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1850-1852, 1851-01-27

Can the United States impeach it now, on the
ground of the madDquacy Of the equivalent re-
ceivedl Certainly not, Sir II /, too late; the
parties are changed. The merchants claims are
just the same, whether you received an ade-
qnate equivalent, or exchanged their demands
for an insufficient consideration.
Nevertheless, let Us pursue the objection.
You say that however intriDsically just the
claims may have been, they were renounced be-
cause you could not collect them without re-
sort TO war. | reply, just aim against a
civilized State is never yalueless. II the State
refuses to be just / day, it may become more
just to morrow. 1t is true that the United States
were not bound to declare war for the claims,
but it is equally true that they hid no right to
confiscate them without indemnity.
Thus we have reached one OF the main de-
fences against these claims, viz 3:
Filthy. That The ancient treaties had become
roid as against the United States and therefore
The release Of them by France ia 1900 pas ralue-
less
This argument involves two propositions:
l. That France Jragrantiy riolated those
compacts.
q That the United States perfectly fulfilled
them
/. That France fagrantly violated those com
pacts. The chief object of the treaties OF l778
was the establishment of the liberty sovereignty
and independence Of the United States in the
war Of the revolution, and forever afterwards
France fulfilled her guarantee in the revolution
But the merit Of that fulilment is denied. II
was said by one of my predecessors Mr.. DIX
that France was not mQyed by generosity or
sympathy in entering int NE treaties, or in fuI
filling them Sir, a nution~shose pride can con-
descend so far as to receive benefits. vindicates
too ~ and
| enduring gratitude.
Sir, interest and ambition do indeed too often
mingle with the purest and highest Of human
motives not less of States than Of individuals
But the character Of motives must be determined
by the character Of the actions in which they re-
suit. Sir, in the strait OF the revolution, your
agents applied for aid, not to the King Of France
oaly, but also to the Emperor of Germany, to
the Kings Of Spain, Of Prussia, and to the Grand
| Duke OF Tuscany. From neither of them could
they gain so much as Il protest to discounte-
nance the hire OF mercenares by the German
Princes to the King of Great Britain to be en-
ployed with savage Indian tribes against U.s.
But France yielded money, volunteers. recogni-
ton and armed alliance. Was there no merit
in that
1t is true that in our oppressor France found
a rival TO humble and overthrow. But had
Britain no other rival or enemy than France p
If there were others, why did we not win them
to our side France did indeed exact guar
antee from the United States in exchange for her
own. But did we find any other power willing
| TO enter into such an exchange! Moreover,
France conceded to us all Of the conquests which
should be made by the allied armies in the war
of the revolution, except such as would have been
useless to US, and even including the Canadas.
of (Which had raaaptly tod m dapriva
her, and she insisted on no remunera ion after
the war should end. Was there no magma
nimity in that!
France was not actuated chiefly by ambition
or revenge in making the engagements Of 1918.
The people, and even the court were filled with
enthusiastic admiration of the United States and
Of their cause Feneon had already educated
even royalty in that cause, in the palace and
under the eye Of the Grand Monarque. The
court, the army, the navy, the rulers, and the
people of France, had no standard Of hero but
! Washington, no model of philosopher but
Franklin, nor of State but the United States
Seventeen years ago | traversed the now de-
serted and desolate chambers of the Bourbons
IF France. Never shall | forget the gratified
pride felt, when found among the family pic.
lures of the House Of Orleans one which CON-
memmorated the visit of Franklin to the Palais
Royae, and among the illustrations of the ma
tional glory at Versailles, one that celebrated
the surrender of CORVALLIS The failure of
Louis XVI as a King, resulted from bis attempt
ing like Nerva in ancient Rome, and Pic Mono
in modern Rome, to combine the two incompati-
bic things the enlargement of popular freedom
with the maintenance of rega power Nor may
we undervalue the aid received from France
1t decided the contest. 1t cost her more than
three hundred millions of dollars and hurried
her into a revolution uore tyhausting than any
other State, in the tide of times, has endured.
Thus it appears that France fulfilled faithfully
and completely her chief engagements in the
treaties Of l77S while it is admitted that she
failed afterwards in less essential obligations, but
with proiestations of adherence and promises OF
reparation.
2 Did the United States completely and a5so-
iuteiy fulfil their reciprocal obligation When
the war Of 1893 broke out, France held all the
possessions in America which they had guar
anteed to her forever, and they were all exposed
Yet the Uaitei States never guaranteed nor at
tempted to defend them; never devoted life
nor even dollar to that end. Thus, instead of
standing on fulfilment, we are at once brought
to the necessity Of justifying a non performance
of the engagements The justification has
been placed on several grounds, viz:
J. Tnat France did not demand ulliment
Such an inference is warranted by some Of
the papers before us, but there are Others which
leave the fact very doubtful.
II beg you to lay before the President of the
United States, as soon as possible the deg ee
aud the enclosed note, and to obtain from him
the Cabinet decision, either to the guarantee
that have claimed the iuIilmeni of for our col
ones, SEE. c. Genefs Letter Of Noe. ID,
1893.
But France did not demand the Performance
of the guarantee in the war, she insisted on its
obligation. The United States practically diSa
ro,oed and renowned it. The proposition i
selfevidcnt. The treaty stipulated alliance
when France should demand it. The United
States assumed neutrality in every event.
.. The non-performance by the United States
has bee justified on e ground thit the casus
frder,s OF the stipulated guarantee was deten
sive war, and that the war of 1893 was not OF
That character.