The southern press. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1850-1852, 1851-01-25

possible, In Me article In Jays trsaty there
was special reservation Of the righfe which
} other nationa Possessed under former treaties.
While We allowed the French any length Of
time they chase within which to hoist sail with
. their prices, we allowed the Bdtish to do SO ~
! speedily a. possible. The two treaties, cosl-
strued together. violated no right which France
had acquired from us. She could bring in her
, prizes, even from the British, but the British
could not bring in French prizes To our ports.
Such was the practice for some time under the
, treaties; for we fad the Secretary Of State in
/ l796 corresponding with the Governor Of Vir-
GINA on the subject, and using all the exertions
IN his power TO prevent the English from bring
. ing in French prizes. II is probably true, as
Mr. Monroe suggested in one of his letters to
the French government, that, with all our Efforts
TO the contrary, there might have been occa-
} si0ns when British vessels ran in, contrary 10
our laws and orders. But here, too, we were
Justified had we departed from the treaty OF
l77S so far az to have permitted the British to
have brought in French prizes for 1t is notori-
Gus that the French had commenced long be-
fore, and continued to perpetrat outragcs upon
US.
will now refer to another subject which has
been relied upon as a justification for the
French: / mean our alleged failure 10 execute
the guarantee of which | have spoken. MIR.
President, have shown that the French never
asked or desired US To execute it; and that,
therefore, Is not just cause OF complaint But
choose to go little further into this matter,
for the purpose of indicating the reputation OF
the country and the character of Washington
himself, rs both are implicated in the charge OF
having violated treaty stipulations and the most
solemn obligations to a friend and ally for it is
certainy true that he never would have con-
scented TO execute that guarantee in the war then
existing between France and Great Britain. A
reproach, therefore, must rest npon his name for
having deliberately determined to violate 80 SOL
emn covenant, il ia truth he was bouod by it.
Sir, it was the opinion Of Washington, of
Washington's cabinct-and think the opinion
can be successfully maintained--that we were
not bound to execute that guarantee. It was
subject upon which he consulted his cabinet
4 Two Of them reserved their opinions, and two
Of ttenl--the Secretary of the Treasury and the
Secretary Of War-declared that we were not
4 bound to execute it, for two reasons, as given
in Marshall's Life Of Washington. One was,
that it would compromise our safety, and, it
might be, our existence, to attempt it; the other
was, that our alliance with France was a defen-
sive alliance; an |, being defensive alliance, we
could not be asked to engage in an offensive
war, or to execute that guarantee. Both OF
these opinions are right, according to the dicta
Of writer's on the laws of nations and according
! to the practice Of civilized communities
In relation to the first excuse, that it would
r compromise our safety, and, it might be our
existence, who can doubt the fact That it is a
valid excuse for failing to execute a treaty be-
cause it is likely TO prove runous is affirmed by
r the best authorities on the subject Vattel
|, (book 2, ch. IL, 8. l60)expresslv lays down the
doctrine, that if treaty is likely to be runous,
8 and tends to compromise the safety of the
E country, the government is not bound to carry
5 it into execution, because no government could
lawfully enter into such treaty if they knew
3 beforehand it would turn out to be ruinous.-
f We shall find presently that this is not merely
5 precept but practice Nations have in such
: cases made that excuse, and the excuse has been
a considered legitimate.
The other excuse, that it was n defensive al
J, lance, and, being defensive alliance. France
e could not call upon US to embark in mn offensive
l. war, is one which can be shown to have been
5 perfectly just 1t is laid down by Grotius on
: that subject (see also Vatte b. 3, ch. 6, $. 49,
8 to same point,) that if two nations engage to
assist each other in future wars, lis understood
> that those wars must be just. This Limitation
c must always be considered to accompany the
J., promise, because if nation were to promise be-
: fOrehand to enter into AN unjust war, the under
e taking would be void for its immortality.
60 one step further in this regard, because
) find myself supported in my position by the
practice of nations If two independent nations
make such n compact you cannot call for assis-
lance upon the nation which has made defen-
sivc alliance with you, if your war be o1snsipe,
whether it be just or unjust. IL you declare
war, you cannot call upon nation which had
| IL. 1af. all