The daily crescent. [volume] ([New Orleans, La.]) 1848-1851, 1851-02-05
The French spoliation BIN.

This title is as familiar to the readers of Con
gressional proceedings as the style Of the suit Of
PEBBLES vs Plains,ead was to the Scotch barrsters
The debt has been so long put off, that Congress,
seems disposed to repudiate altogether one of the
most just claims ever presented to its magnanimiy
and sense Of right 1t has repeatedly passed one
House or the other, but by accident, it has never
passed both, on the same session, except during
Mr.. Folks administration, and he vetoed the bill
1t has just passed the Senate by an overwhelming
majority the two Louisiana Senators voting in its
favor. Mr.. Seward made very clear statement
Of the merits in his recent able speech 1t is to be
regretted that man of his fine intellect should be
carried away by the higher law notions, which are
so inconsistent with his practical mind as mani
tested in this last and mastery effort:
First: That on the 9th day Of February, ITS,
and on the 14th of November, I7SS, the United
States and France entered into reciprocal political
and commercial engagements, mutually beneficial.
Secondly: That previously to the Both of Sep
TENDER, 1900, France violated her engagements by
committing depredations, in which merchants, cti-
Of the United States, sustained damages to the
amount Of $20,000,000, Of which, after allowing
all claims adjusted, there still remains the OF
$10000,00 exclusive Of interest
Thirdly; That the United States negotiated
with France for payment of these damages, and
.
and that France conceded the claims for damages,
but demanded national indemnities for violation
of the treaties by the United States and also
tinuance and renewal of them.
Fcurtbly: That the United States renowned
their claims for damages, in consideration of re-
lease by France Of the treaties and Of her claims
for damages.
Fiffhly: That thus the United States confis-
Gated ten millions of private property Of their
chants, and applied it to the purchase Of national
benefits, under Constitution which declares that
private property shall not be taken for public
without Just compensation to its owners.
1t seems to result from these facts that the United
States became Immediately liable to pay to the
American merchants the sums before due to them
by France; and, as this obligation was assumed by
the United States in lieu of their ancient engage
ments with France, undertaken to secure the esab-
lshment of tho national liberty and independence,
it becomes in equity invested with their sacredness
and sanctions, and therefore ought to be regarded
as debt incurred for the attainment of the sove-
regnty, liberty and independence Of the United
States.
Why, then, Mr.. President, shall not this debt, so
ancient, and apparently SO sacred and SO just, be
discharged?
He states and answers the objections.
First. The intrinsic justice of tho claims has
been questioned.
The very learned and justly distinguished Sena-
tor from Missouri, Mr. Benton] in former debate,
stated that France had justified these spoliations,
on the ground that the ships seized, were in part
laden with goods belonging to Englshmen, who
had borrowed the names Of Americans. | have
not been able to find evidence to support such a
pretension. On the other hand, the diplomatic
language of the United States constantly claimed
that the sufferers were American citizens. Sir If
these claims spurious, then it must be true,
that either Ellsworth, Marshall Pinckney, Mon
roe, Morris, Jefferson Adams the elder and Wash
SC stx.t al Il
luded to defraud France. Neither position can be
true. The claims are therefore Just.
Secondly: 1t has been objected in late years,
that tho claims belonged to speculators Certainly
few Of the sufferers survive, and soon all will have
departed. But the claims are property; they were
could be transferred and transmitted by assignment
will and administration. These are only modes in
which property is perpetuated and this capablity
Of being perpetuated is inherent in it, and is al
ways rghtfuly and necessarily recognized and pro-
tected by all governments, with proper limitations.
Thirdiy: 1t Is said that the evidences of the
claim and Of title mast necessarily be loose and tn
eo,sct1sive.
However this may be, the fault does not rest
with the claimants, while the loss will fall upon
them Moreover they must produce legal evi.
denee. The United States can justly ask no more.
| Fomrthly' 1t is denied that The United States
Exchanged release Of the claim, for release Of
| the ancient treaties
We have seen that, in form at least the treaty. Of
| lS0O was such an exchange of those equivalents
II was understood to be such an exchange in effect
when made. Robert r. Livingston said:
M will be ecoected by the dstng characters yvbs
had the management OF the negotiation Thai he fn
illegal captures with damages and ndemntiss Was de-
l776 the other that they considered as Of
ea!us and that they only formed the subject Of he
article. Letter to Taleyrand, April l7th, 1902,
Napoleon, at st. Helena, declared:
THAT the suppression of the second article at once mn,
end to the privileges which France had possessed by Al
ueatie, Of ll7S and annuled the just claims which Amerc
might have bad for injuries done in time Of iCOnve
Filthy. That the ancient treaties had beeom
void as against the United States, and thereto,
| the release of them by Fypnee in 1900 ,oas vdlut
less.
This argument involves two propositions
/. That France .fagyantly piolated those con
| pacts.
| 2. That the United States perfectly Jf4lflle
them.
Sirth: The opponents of tbs bill neat insi
ttat the treaties had BEEN abrogoted by an Act
Congress tchieh pas passed on the It'll day
July, l79s, viz:
lhis act declared this Government free from a
snpuiatons formed by treaties, in consequence
tneir lnfrachon by France. But the answer is, th
congress has not the power to make or aboli.
!. treaties. And second, that both parties must agre
, to make and to dissove-one alone cannot relea.
itself.
Ssrenthly: As last resort. thu onnonen,,
these claims assert that the release of fhe onc,s,
treaties soas patueless, because then had ben 05r.
Sass0 ey scar tsswssn tho too nations.