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

Of wleI no oregn nation can contest The F,sach aa,
tiow eM nsps, ys"oumes hem "-M iaH'ya"d 10 M ga"
~, Jaa. 49, 1898
The convention OF 1900 was then, IN act well as IN
form, treaty OF equivalents. e..
Can the United States impeach II now on ihe GROUND
OF the tadsguaey OF the equivalent received certainly
not, sir Ii is too late; the parties are changed Inc
merchants claims just the same, whether you re-
ceved an adequate equivalent or exchanged 'he'r de-
mands Tor an insufficient consideration. =
| Nevertheless, let US pursue the objection you say
that however ntrnscaly just the claims may have Deem
without resort to war reply, Just clam against a
civilized State s vaueess II the State refuses TO
be Just to day. i may become more Just Tomorrow II
is true that the United States not bound 10 declare
Tor the claims, but 1t equally true that they had
no right to confscate them without indemnify
Thus we have reached one OF the main deiences against
Filthy That The ancient treaties had become uoid as
against The United States, and therefore he release Of
them by France 1900 palueiess
/ This Argument Involves Two propositions:
T. That rance fsgranHy p'oiated those compacs.
p That the United States perfectly fulfilled them
/. That France hagTanily violated those compacts.
The chief object OF the treaties OF TITS was the establish
ment OF the liberty sovereignty and independence Of the
United States N the war Of the revolution and ioreye
afterwards France fulfilled her guarantee in the revolu
lion. But the merit OF that iuhlment is denied 1t was
said by one Of my predecessors (Mr Dx) that France
into the treaties or in fulfilling them Sir nation whose
pride can condescend 80 far as to receive benefits vnd
Gates itself fully by the exercise OF unquesiioning and
enduring gratitude. .a.# #aa .a
| Sir interest and ambition do indeed too often minge
with the purest and highest of human motives. no, less
OF States than OF Individuals But the character OF
in which they result Sir in the strait OF the revolution,
your agents applied for aid not 10 the King OF France
only but also 10 the Emperor Of Germany 10 the Kings
OF Spain and Prussia and to The Grand Duke of Tuscany
From neither OF them could they gain so much as a
protest TO discounienance the hire Of mercenaries by
the German princes TO the King Of Great Britain, 10 be
employed with savage Indian tribes against us. But
France yielded money, volunteers recognition and armed
alliance. Was there no merit in that!
aad ous RE- ha n
or enemy than France' II there Others why did
we not win them to sdel France did indeed exact
guarantee from the United States in exchange for her
own. But did we find any other power willing to
into such exchanged Moreover, France conceded to
US all OF the conquesis which should be made by the allied
armies 10 the of the revolution, except such as
would have been useless to US, and even including the
Canadas Of which had SO recently assisted 10 de-
prive her, and she insisted on no after the
war should end. Was there magnaDmity in that3
France was not actuaed chiefly by ambition revenge
In making the engagements OF ITS. The people and
even the court were filled with enthusiastic admiration
OF the United States and OF their cause Fenelon had
already educated even royalty IN that cause, IN the
palace and under The eye of the Grand Monaque The
court The army the navy the rulers and the people OF
model OF philosopher but Franklin, nor of State but
the United States Seventeen years ago raversed the
deserted and desoaie chambers of the Bourbons of
France Never shall forget the gratitied pride felt
when found among the family pictures OF the House OF
Orleans one which commemoraied the visit OF Frankl
" among Oh
national glory at Versailles that celebrated the
render of CORVALLIS. The failure OF Louis XVI
King resulted from his attempting, like Nsrva in ancient
Rome, and Pho Nino in modern Rome, to combine the
two incompatible thngs-,he enlargement of popular free
dom with the maintenance of regal power Nor may we
undervalue the aid received from rance j decided the
contest II cost her more than three hundred millions
of dollars, and hurried her into revolution ex.
hausng than any other State, in the tide of times. has
endured.
Thus it appears that France fulfilled faithfully and
completely her chief engagements the treaties OF IT'S,
while II is admitted that she failed afterwards in less
essential obligations but with proestatons OF adherence
and promises of reparaton.
9 Did the United States completely and absolutely fi
their reciprocal obligations When the oil 1873
broke cut, France held all the possessions IN America
which they had guaranteed TO her forever and they
all exposed. Yet the United States guaranteed
attempted TO defend them devoted life even
dollar TO that end Thus, instead OF standing on fulfil
men, we at brough, 10 the necessity OF us,iyng
non performance of the engagements The justification
has been placed on several grounds, viz:
l. That France did moi demand fulflment
Such an inference is warranted by OF the papers
before u.s. but there others which leave the fact very
doubtful;
a. beg you to lay before the President Of the United
States, possible. the decree aud the enclosed
note and to obtain from him the cabinet decision, either
Tor our r colonies ass nsTs c op M lbs
But Il France did not demand the performance of the
guarantee IN the she insisted on lis obligation. The
United States practically disapoi0sd and renounced II
The proposition is seli.eyldent The treaty stipulated
alliance when France should demand it, The United
States assumed neutrality in every event
q The performance by the United States has been
justified the ground that the caSuS federss OF the
stipulated guarantee was defensive war; and that the
war OF 1893 was not OF that character
In reply 10 tins argnRen observe ~ the first place
that the Terms oil he treaty OF alliance stipulated for the
execution OF the guarantee in the OF " 10 break
ouf'-any war, offensive defensive. But the senator
from Virginia Mr.. HUsTrRl oyerpowers US with an AZ
gument which with irresistible. He says that ouig
defenS,Ue must have been contemplated, because a
stipulation for aid and alliance IN aggressive war
would be immoral, unjust, and therefore void Sir /
acknowledge that higher law OF universal and eternal
Justice, And admit that all laws OF States, and all
treaties and compacis between States, which contra
vene It's sacred provisions, utterly VOID and OF
effect accept, therefore, the senator's definition of the
cdstS t1deTis; that II was defensive conroveft,
and rest my cause upon conrovering, his assumption
that the OF 1893 between the allied powers and
France was, on her part aggressive and not defen
| sye war,
The very proclamation OF neutrality implies a denial Of
that assumption The therein described u a war
between Austria, Prussia, Sardinia, Great Britain and
the United Netherlands, OF the part and France
the other Why was the aggressor the last party to be
named But history has determined the character oil the
parties IN that momentous contest
The first war Of The French revolution" says Wheaton
in his History Of the Law of Nations 'orgnaed in the
application By the Allied Powers OF the principle Of armed
intervention to the internal affairs OF France for the pu.
pose OF checking the progress OF her revolutionary prn
c'ples and the extension Of her military power" War
was declared, indeed by France, but only reply TO
the ulfnaium OF restoration OF desposm rendered by
the armed league OF enemies
Thus, SIR, we have arrived al the true ground OF de.
fence OF The neutrality OF 1885, 10 wit thai performance