New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1851-01-25

II and is always rightiully and necessarily recog
n;zed and protected by all Governments, Win
CONGRATULATIONS. Individual property IS the bat
sst of the State. Wo 10 the State that casts Il
overheard That State is sure to drift away ana
10 break upon the rocks. But the allegation that
snecnlstors have purchased these claims is deHied,
while the bill protects the public II It be bue.
None but a lawful assignee can take any oeneh1
from the bill nor can he receive In any case more
than he actually paid for the claim.
TRirdlv. II IS said that the crideHcss Of ne clam
and of title must necessarily be loose AMI moon
clpsire. .. ,.. -,.,
with The claimants. while the loss will fall upon
them. Moreover, they must produce legal eYl-
depce. The United States can Justly ask no more
F0urtlfy. II is deAied nat the United States e.
changed Grelease # the CLAIMS for release o. me
ancient treaties. ...-.
If 900 was such an exchange Of those equiv al
ents II was understood to be such an exchange
in effect, when made. Robert K. Livingston sald :
will be recolected By the distinguished Characters
who had the management Of the negotiation that me pay
was demanded on the side, and the renewal OF me
treaties Of 7e the other that they are considered as o.
he second articlen-Leffey 70 TayraHd, Apri IT, l6o%
Napoleon, at st. Helena, declared:
That the suppression Of the second article al one &
lie treaties Of l77s and annulled the Just claims wncn
America mghthave had for injuries done in time Of peace
- C0nrersdfi0H t0iM GOuTgGHd. .
Notwitbstapding these and similar contempt
raneous exposltions, it has been insisted here by
two Of my very eminent predecessors, MI
Wright and Mr.. Dix, as well as by others, that
this confessed form of the treaty was mere
diplomatic artifce that In fact it was not an eX-
change Of equivalents and that the claims Tor
epolatiops were renOunced because they could
not be enforced and not for an adequate and ad-
mitted consideration. Sir, did Oliver Ellsworth
and his colleagues combine to practice dlplo-
matte fraud upon France Certainly not. w ere
they then circumventedl If we should grant
that thew were, there would vet remain John
Adams, President in 1900, and Thomas Jefferson,
President in 1901, and the Senate Of those years,
all equally compromised Who will impeach
their intelligence or their directnessl Sir, upon
whom shall we rely to vindicate our own less de-
served and ephemeralfame, if we strike so rudely
the monuments where these great names lie
sleeping
Ifthe United States can plead fraud in this or
in any other case, how shall creditors or allies, in
dividuals or States learn to distinguish between
obligations which we admit to be valid and those
which we claim q right to repudiate
No, Sir; we cannot raise such defense. Nor
could it be maintained. No one questions the
sincerity of the United States in prosecuting
these claims. France was equally sincere in ad-
hitting and prelerring her own. Even in her pira'
teal DEGREES, she pleaded an overpowering pres
sure and promised reparaton.
being informed that some French prvaeers have taken
vessels belonging to The United States OF America hasten
engage you take the most speedy and eceeous means
to put n stop this robberyMoHse Minister Of Marine,
TO me Ordonnateuys Of France, March 80, 1888.
Thus France was ingenious even in her agony
of social commissions.
"Although it THE treaty Of 1871 is reciprocal upon
the whole some provisions more specially applicable
TO the fixed position Of the United States and others have
aluson only the eventfu position Of France The latter
has stipulated few advantages advantages which do not IN
any respect pure the United States ana tue awuness OF
which 10 foreign nation contest The French nation
lcW nerer renounce Hcm"-M Talievyaad 10 Mr.. Gerry,
JAM lS, 1893.
The Convention of 1900 was then, in fact as
well as in form, treaty Of equivalents.
Can the United States impeach it now, on the
ground Of the in0dequacy of the equivalent ere
ceived Certainly not, Sir. 1t is too late f; the
parties are changed. The merchants claims are
Just the same, whether you received an adequate
equivalent, or exchanged their demands for an in
sufficient consideration.
Nevertheless, let us pursue the objection. You
say that however ntrinsically just the claims may
have been, they were renOunced because you
could not collect thems without resort to war. l
reply, just claim against a civilized State is
never valueess If the State refuses to be just
to-day, it may become more just to morrow. lt
is true that the United States were not bound to
declare war for the claims, but it is equally true
that they had no right to conhscate them without
indemnity.
Thus we have reached one OF the main de-
lenses against these claims, viz;
FIfhiV: That the ancient treaties had become
roid as against the United States, and therefore
The release of them BIZ France in 1900 irdS UdtVeleSS
This argument involves two propositions;
l. That France .GdgranHy rtotated those com
?. That the United States perfectly ta!fHed
/. That France Hagrantly violated those com.
pacts The chief object OF the treaties OF l1Ie
was the establishment of the liberty, sovereignty
and independence Of the United States, in thew al
of TIE Revolution, and forever aiterward France
fulfilled her guarantee in the Revolution. But the
merit of that fulhllment is denied. IL said by
one of nv predecessors Mr.. Dix)that France was
not moved by generosity or sympathy in entering
into the treaties, or fulfilling them. Sir nation
whose pride can condescend so lar as to receive
benefits, vindicates itself fully by the exercise OF
unquestiouing and enduring gratitude.
Sir interest and ambition do indeed too often
mlnele with the purest and highest Of human mo.
tives, not less of States than OF individuals. But
the character of motives must be determined by
the character of the actions in which they result.
Sir, in the strait of the Revolution, your agents
applied for aid, not to the King of France only,
but to the Emperor Of Germany, to the Kings OF
Spain and Prussia, and TO the Grand Duke OF
Tuscany. From neither of them could they gain
so much as protest to discountenance the hire
OF mercenaries by the German Princes to the
King Of Great Britain, TO be employed with sa-
wage Indian tribes against US. But France yield
ed money volunteers, recognition, and armed al
lance. 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 II there
were others, why did we not win them TO our
side France did indeed exacta guarantee 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 70
Us all Of the conquest which should be made by
the allied armies in the War OF thelReyolution,
except such as would have been useless to US,
and even including the Canadas, of which we had
sorecently assisted to deprive her. and she insist
ed on no remuneration after the war should end.
Was there no magnanimity in that
France was not aotuated chiefly by ambition or
revenoein making the engagements Of l77s The