Weekly national intelligencer., 1851-01-25


say they asked that should execute that guar
anty know that Mr. Livingston, in his report, refers
loose expression Of Mr. Genet but In answer to that
would refer letter Of Mr. Randolph, Secretary OF state
written in 1884, mo l02, page 7s IN which ne says tha
Mr. Genet and Mr. Fauchet both declared that they did
ask Us to execute that guaranty but wished Us TO remain
neutral nation and in fact to the advantage OF France
that should remain in that position because we were thus
enabled carry great deal OF their commerce asneutra
and supply their colonies with many things OF which they
were in indispensable need It is that Mr. Livingston
refers expression in OF Mr. Monroes letters, IN
which Mr. Monroe said he rebore to the claim for In
IDENTITIES BECAUSE he pressed IT, the French might demand
the execution of that guaranty But be did not refer TO the
answer of Secretary Of State 10 that letter, in which he
rebuked Mr. Monroe, and expressed his surprise that he did
press those claims and said that the French Government
would demand the execution of that guaranty That let
may be found in the document to which have refer
red, page 81. ... .
know that is pretended that Mr.. Adet, in letter writ
in 1896, demanded the execution Of that guaranty II
that could be proved might easily show that before that
they had forfeited all right demand its execution. But
in truth, when 10 look into these expressions, we
find such demand. 1t another matter to which he
referring He referring complaint which they
raised under Jays treaty He referring to the fact that
had suffered provisions TO be made conraband as they
ssd but partially conaband in TRUTH and in doing viz
,ualy admitted they maintained, the right Of England to
make paper bockades and shut out supplies from their colo
nss. That the Of which the Directory complained
the summary Of grievances which they issued in the March
speaking of "hey have consented to extend the demo-
mnaon Of conaband t" PROVISIONS instead Of restrict
ing it, all treaties have done, to the OF effective
blockade Of port, forming the only exception 10 the
complete freedom Of the article they have aciy acknow
lodged the preensons Of England extend the blockade 10
colonies and France by force Of proclamation
alone" This what Mr.. Adet meant when he said
g. 367 thai allowed the French colonies to be de-
cired n state Of blockade and its citizens nterdcted the
right OF trading with them In other sense did ne refer
Ourp n The
shall presently show when to that part OF the argu
ment where will be appropriate that the French bad
just Of complaint Of that article in jays
treaty. @
As further proof that they had demanded it
have the evidence of Gen. Washington himself in his Fare
well Address issued just he going out OF otce de
says in relation to right to hold neutral position
will only observe that according my understanding Of the
NATTER that right, far from being denied by any OF the
bellgeren Powers, has been virtually admitted by a-(5
Mashals Life of Washington, p 7Os. And in fact, so
and in 1898, finding that the French continued to vo-
late not only their treaty stpuatons in relation to us but
also rights under the law Of nations, our Congress- by
solemn act declared that for these reasons the treaties
abogated abolished, null and void know il has been said
that is not in the power of nation to abrogate treaty
that takes two nations to make treaty, and two to put an
end to it. That sir, true in senses Of the term
does take two nations put end treaty and here
have the public acts Of both Here have the acts OF
France violating rights under the provisions of the a
tles, shall presently showand, indeed, the claimants
have act the other hand declaring the treaties
that ground, to be abrogated and void.
Now can there be doubt that had right to put an
end to the treaty for these violations their sde unless
could be shown that their violations were in retaliation for
wrongs committed by ourselves : This is branch of the
argument to which will come presently. say, there
be doubt of our right to do this any doubts for
Moment aad will look into the discourse of Lord Liverpool,
written in l757 the conduct of Great Britain with respect
to neutral nations (see Debrets Collection first volume
he hal ueStio fu he
tanned and demonstrated He will find it maintained upon
such authorities Go'us who says 81 pars una Fodus
violaverit, poert altera Fedee discedee, capita
Fe lers sngula condonis vim habent." And Puffendor
who, speaking of conventions, says sNec bRc aeram
obgant ub alb uno legbus conventions uert saisac
tum might quote other authorities to the effect, but
need not dean the Senate by particular reference
to them If however, wishes to pursue the subject
further he will find especially laid down in Vae who de-
cares that it is ground for abrosang treaty. And he
will find well argued by Lord Liverpool in the discourse
which have referred. t..... ~
But the Senator from Connecticut, NJ SMlrH,) with
some ingenuity, said, that while he would admit it
ground for atrogatng treaty that portion OF its spua
ons had been violated by the other contracting party yet
was not ground for abrogang treaties of which
never bad been violated and he referred to dctum
which he found somewhere in that correspondence have
not looked into it. but have doubt may be found laid
down, it was laid down in effect by Supreme Court in
case which up from New Haven, (o be found think
in Wheaton, that il does not follow from the right to
therefore all aDoilsneu
because they specify in which itself consider
ed toput an end TO treaty. need not specify recapu
late them but imagine he find it nowhere laid down
that the violation by Of the contracting parties of
treaty can justify the other contracting party in putting
an end to all treaties On the contrary the is
presy laid down by Vattel, Civ. 2 chsp. l3, 20I,
and laid down with reason. '......r. +. .. 7
II the violation of treaty would Justify nation in GO
ing TO war, as undoubtedly it may-and puts end to
all treaessha be said that while it would authorize
to go to war, would not justify lesser STEP it would
justify US IN saying that without making will abo-
gate all treaties between you do not keep yours and
place ourselves in true relations according the laws
nations But the right is laid down explicitly in these ee-
menary writers to whom have just referred If this be
case we had the right bogae these treaties provided the
French bad committed these wrongs. Need ecapituate
them They commenced in l793 laying embargoes on our
vessels, sezng them when loaded with provision enemys
goods and carrying them into their ports, ". Marsh Wash
noe H IN express violation of the treaty, thus taking from
US our privilege under the eay of amy and commerce.
that as between the two naons free ships should make
goods They also seized chips for of role dequ
page form of certificate peculiar to themselves although
the treaty evidently plated that these vessels should
free when they had the necessary letters made
ing to the forms of the respective nations To cap the eli
they proclaimed to the world that they would treat neu
a nations they permitted the English to treat them an,
they undertook TO do without regard treaties or the
of nations. hey did all this and which need not b
repeated Unless be shown they did not show tha
this retaliation, and just retaliation, for wrongs whic
had committed upon hem they such violations
treaty stpulations justified in putting end to all tn
eaties then subsistng between and five justified
pang end to these treaties they then existed in 1898
it follows clearly they not in existence in 1900 Tbi
fellows clearly because have il the authority Of
I opnmiSe pho