Weekly national intelligencer., 1851-01-25

grant such ptensons They complained tOc
jays treaty, because they said suffered the English
give less than rights under the laws Of naons becsus
suffered the English to treat than the Frenc
treated under their treaty Of smiy and Az
cordng their treaty free ships made free goods and accord
ing Jays treaty the English hsd right 10 seize enemies
goods in neutral ships matter which gave them no jus
grounds of complaint because provision strictly in
cordance with the laws of naon all authorities chow
They also complained that had suffered provisions
made contraband The fact Of the that there
that day conroveed point in the practice Of nations il
relation to this law Of contaband applied to provisions
We settled it with England by compromise We did no
exactly declare provisions contraband but we allowed thu
Brilsh TO prevent vessels when loaded with provisions
from entering French ports, but they SLOWED Il
seize the cargo, do than divert them from their voy
age; they obliged indemnify the for the cargo
and profits. II its face compromise Of disputed
point in the law Of nations; and having thcs secured
rights neural nation nearly possible, just
of complaint the French that could do
and settle every disputed point in favor. Nor
for them complain, in 1898 they had reatsd
and seized both vessel and when loaded with provisions
But there another complaint upon which the Senator
from Connecscut rested with especial emphasis Mr. Liv
ngson, in his report says that did not allow the French
the exclusive right of asylum to which they entitled
under the l7h article Of the treaty of amy and
The Senator from Connecticut said that the 24h article OF
Jays treaty precisely similar to the 18th article Of the
treaty Of commeyce between the United States and France,
and ners from thence, presume that the latter violated the
first If he had examined the articles with his usual atten
ton be would have found two most material differences BY
the 7h article Of the treaty Of amy and commerce the
French allowed bring in prizes and sail any time
whhersoever they pleased BY the cath article Of Jays
treaty the British allowed to bring in prizes and
sail whthersoever they pleased speedily possible ln
the article in jays treaty there special reservation OF
the rights which other nations under former treaties
While allowed the French any length Of time they chose
within which hoist sail with their Prize allowed the
British to do speedily possible The two treaties
construed together violated right which France had ac-
qured from She could bring in her prizes from the
British but the British could bring French prizes TO
ports Such the practice for time under the
treaties; for find the Secretary of State in 1875 corre-
spending with the Governor of Virginia the subject and
using all the exerons in his power to prevent the English
from bringing in French prizes II probably true, Mr.
Monroe suggested Of his letters abe French Govern
ent that with all efforts to the contrary, there might
have been occasions when British vessels in contrary
laws and orders But here, toe, justified had de
parted from the treaty Of 77s far have permitted the
British to have brought in French prizes for 1t notorious
that the French had commenced long before, and continued
to perperate ourages upon t"
will refer another subject which has been relied
upon justification for the French mean our alleged
failure to the guaranty Of which have spoken Mr.
President have shown that the French asked de-
sired Us to execute it and that therefore, not just cause Of
complaint But choose to go little further into this mat
ter for the purpose of vndcatng the reputation Of the
and the character Of Washington himself both i'm
pcated in the charge of having violated treaty stpulaons
and the most solemn obligations to friend and ally for it
certainly that he would have consented execute
that guaranty in the then existing between France and
Great Britain. reproach therefore, must rest upon his
for having deliberately determined to violate solemn
q covenant, if in truth he was bound by it.
Sir it the opinion Of Washington, OF Washington 8
Cabne-and think the opinion be successfully main
taned-hat bound that guaranty. It
subject upon which he consulted his Cabinet Two Of
them reserved their opinions andtwo Of hem-the Secretary
Of the Treasury and the Secretary of Wadecaed that
bound to execute il for reasons, given in Mar
shas life Of Washington. One was, that would compro
mise safety, and might he, existence, to attempt
the other was that alliance with France defensive
alliance, and being defensive alliance could not be asked
to engage in offensive war; to execute that guaranty
Both Of these opinions right according the a of wr
ers on the laws of nations and according to the practice Of
civilized communities.
In relation to the first excuse that it would compromise
safety, and might be, existence who doubt the
fact That it is valid for failing to execute treaty
because it is likely to prove runous, affirmed ny the best
authorities the subject Vate book O. ch. IL, 1907
expressly lays down the doctrine that if treaty likely
be runous and tends the safety Of the county
the Government bound 10 carry ino execution because
no Government could lawfully enter into such treaty they
knew beforehand would turn out to be ruinous We shall
find presently that this is not merely precept but practice
Nations have such made that excuse and the
has been considered legitimate
The other excuse, that ii defensive alliance and
being defensive alliance France could not call upon to
been perfectly just 1t is laid down by Groius that sub
jec (See also Vatte, b. g. ch 6, 49, point that
two nations engage to assist each other in future is
be understood that those must be just This ma
ton always be considered 10 accompany the PROMISE
because if nation promise beforehand to enter into
unjust war, the undertaking would be void for its immo
raty. go step further in this regard, because find
myself supported in my position by the practice OF nations
If independent nations make such compact you cannot
call for assistance upon the nation which has made defensive
alliance with you your be oensoe, whether it be just
or unjust If you declare war; you cannot call upon
ton which had made defensive alliance with you TO assist
you unless you have consulted that nation before your
There obvious for this II am bound to
with you in for your benefit exclusively, before you
declare it. before you enter into it, have right to be
consuted-I have right to know it have right to de-
eide whether enter into it without utter ruin, whether,
too, it is just unjust have right to time 10 see whe
ther make up the differences and bring about peace
have right Also time enable to make proper pre-
paraons for the war; and you have right hurry me nse
without reference my wishes, my interest," my safety
If you give chance to do this, and declare the wal
without consulting me, you have right to call upon me tc
assist you.
Permit me, sir, to refer you to instances to prove
this position The treaty between France and Austria in
1856 defensive alliance and when, in l77S, dispute
arose in relation TO the Bavaran succession the Austrian
Government consulted France know whether she would
furnish her quota Of men, and would supply money as she
had engaged to do. France refused do it. She refused
because hers defensive alliance and this often
sye war, and therefore sho could not be called upon for
ss,ance She refused also, another ground She was
engaged in with England which required all her
sources and 1t would be to her people and to he
safety divide those for the purpose OF aiding
Austria in this She also said that the contem
by the guaranty had not asen because the war which