The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1851-01-23


l9th Congress. SO. In that letter he argued and de-
monsTs.sd. seems 10 beyond the possibility Of
doubt that no such pre,ensions had any foundation
either IN the treaties or the consular convention.
Inc next pretcnsinn which 10 said TO have existed
the part OF the French 1900 was rs to the execution OF
clause contained in the treaty oi alliance. BY which
promised to guaranty them their West India posses
sions II ~ maintained that in 1900 this subslstng
obligation on the part Of the United States. and that when
the French resigned their claim this guarantee they
abandoned very valuable right Now. think am pre-.
pared TO show that the French claimed the
ion OF that guarantee TO 179S that before 1885, by
their own misconduct by violating rights under treaty
spustions and under the laws OF nalions they had az
fordsd just grounds for aboiishing those reaesand,
accordingly. did abolish and abrogae them in l7ss
that these ueaies having been Justly ahrogated and
abolished in 1885, not in existence in 1900 and not
being in existence in lSO0 there ground upon
which the French could demand OF US . execute that
guarantee.
say they never asked that we should execute that
guarantee. know that Mr.. Livingston, in his report,
refers 10 some loose expression OF Mr. Genet but in an
iha would refer to the letter of Mr. Randolph
Secretary OF State, written in 1884, (No l02 page 49,
which he says that MIR. Genet and Mr. Fauchet both de-
cared that they did ask to tina; guarantee
bur wished to remain neutral nation and was in
fact, 10 the advantage OF France that should remain
in that position, because thus enabled 10 carry
on great deal OF their commerce as nentras and supply
their colonies with many things OF which they in in
dspensable need 1t is that MIR Livingston refers
expression in one of Mr. Monroes letters, in which Mr.
MonrOs said he foro0re press the claim for indsmnl
ties because II he pressed IT, the French might demand
the execution OF that guarantee But he did not refer to
the answer of Secretary OF State to that letter. in
which he febuked Mr. Monroe and expressed his surprise
that he did not press those claims. ani said that the
French government, would demand the execution of
that guarantee. That letter may be found in the
documen, to which have referred. page ST.
know that il is pretended that Mr.. Adet, in letter
written in 1885, demanded the execution Of that guaan-
before ha, time they had forfeited all right to demand
Its execution. But. in truth when we come to look
into these expressions. we find no such demand II was
another matter to which be was referring he was re-.
fering 10 complaint which they raised under jays
treaty He was referring TO the fact that we had suf
fered provisions to be made contraband, they said,
but partially contraband in truth and in so doing vr
tually admitted, as they maintained, the right o! Eng
land TO make paper blockades and shut supplies
Directory complained in the summary of grievances
which they issued the March before Mr. Aders Letter.
and in which they said, (page 1887 speaking OF US:
They have consented to extend the denomination OF
con,rabani provisions. instead Of restricting it.
all treaties have DONE 10 the case OF an effective
blockade of port AS forming the only exception TO the
knowledged the preiensions OF England TO extend The
blockade TO colonies, and even TO France, by force
of proclamation alone" This was what Mr., Ade,
meant when he said (p 367I that I'VE allowed The
French colonies be declared in OF blockade,
and It's citizens nterdcted the right of trading with
them In no other sense di he refer to any violation
part Of the treaty OF alliance; and shall pres
entity show, when come to that part OF the argument
where II will be more Appropriate ,sai the French had
no just OF complaint on account OF that article in
jays treaty.
As further proof that they never had demanded it, we
have the evidence OF Gen. Washington himself, in his
Farewell Address. issued just he going ou, Of
Office He ays in relation TO right to hold neutral
position: 81 will only observe that, according - my un
derstandinE OF the matter, that right far from being
ally admitted by all -5 Marshalrs Life OF asainxton
y. 70s And, in fact, 30 it and in 1928, finding
that the French continued to violate ne, only Their treaty
stpua,Ions relation 10 but also rights under The
law OF nations, Congress- by solemn act, declared
inai for these the treaties were abrogated abo
ished. null and void know i: has been said that is
yh~ tn zhTrNya zfk af
takes two nations 10 make treaty. and two TO put an
end it. Thai, - true in senses OF the term
here we have the public acts OF both Here have the
OF France violating right, under the PROVISIONS
OF the treaties, shall presently show-and indeed,
the claimants for spoa,ions admit tha, they did violate
our rxhts-and we have ac, the other hand,
declaring the treaties on mat ground TO be aorsaied and
void.
Now can there be doub; that had a right TO pat
end the treaty for these violations their side.
Ie.s il could be shown that their violations IN
taaiion for wrongs committed by ourselves This Is
branch OF the Argument TO which will presently.
say can there be doubi OF our right 10 do ihs II
any man doubt. II for a moment and will look into the
discourse Of Lord Liverpool. written IN 1857, 90 The con
duct Of Grea, Britain with respect 10 neutral nations see
Debetr. Collection. first volume,) he will find thai gues
ton fully argued, and the right maintained ani demon
sra,ed He wall hnd u maintained upon such snihor-
ties az Gtoins, who "S pa-s una FR ius VIOLA.
verir potter, aiera F1i~re dsc.dere. capita Fr
deris singula condonis vim habent" And Puheniorf,
who. speaking OF conventions, says; "Nec hsc ateraa
lsaotam" might quote other authorities to the same
eject but need no, deain the Senate now BY more
particular reference 10 them Ii any one however, wishes
10 pursue the subject further, he will mod especially
lad down in Va,ie who declares that II ground Tor
abroranx treaty. And be will hnd j, well argued BY
Lord Liverpool the discourse which have referred
But the senator from Connecticut, Nr. SMITH, with
Ingenuity said that while he would admit Il vas
ground for zorossaiug treaty that portlon OF ais
.'pulxons had been violated By The other eoaae'inS
party YET il ground for abrogstlng two tea
lies. OF which never hal been violated and b. re
efred dieiun uhich he found Somewhere IN thz,
correspondence. have not looked into II. bat have
doubt may be found laid down, was lad doxn
in effect By Sapreme Court. in a which came
up from Nsw Haven, TO be found, think, m
Wheaton that does folios fron the right 70 a5o.-
sh treaty tina, therefore al ueass may be abolish
si becanse they specify 10 which iisef no,
ooa~dered to put end to treaty need not specify
or recapstalase them. bu, ! imagine he hat no
where had down thai the violation hy OF the coz
tracing parties of treaty never lnsiy The Other
contracting party pult'ng ead 10 all treates ua
the contrary. the reverse eypressly lad doSn BY
ya,seI (f.iv 2, chap ~. 2oi.) and lad down With
reason.
n the violaioa Of one treaty woald Justify nation in
gong 10 war. a. undoubtedly may-and ~ar pats an
end 10 all ueate.shall !, be said that while would
authorize % To 20 10 war would no, IastIiy ess~r
.ser-it woald not Justify in saying 'ha, without
max ing viii abroxa;s al reanes between us as
you 90 keep yours. and place ourselves n our true
relations according TO the laws o naioax' Bat The night
s laid down explicitly these elementary writers 10
whom have Insi referred II thss be the case, we had
The right ahrogAse these treaties, prov ed the French
hs4 committed these Need recAp.iaiAe them
They crmmsseed IN l7s3. laying emharxo~- oar ves-
.es seixinG rhem when ioaied with provision ensmys
Il A. - -