The republic., 1851-01-31

the sufferers survive and soon all will have depart
ed. But the claims are property; they were fh
property OF those sufferers AS property they could
be transferred and transmitted by assignment
viii, and administration. These only modes
In which property is perpetuated; and this capabil
Iy OF being perpctuated is inherent in it, and is al
ways rightfully and necessarily recognised and
protected by all governments, with proper limita-
tons. Individual property is the ballast Of the State
Wo TO the State that casts it overheard That State
is sure to drift away and to break upon the rocks
But the allegation that speculators have purchased
these caims is denied while the bill protects the
public If it be true None but a lawful assignee
take any benefit from the BILL nor can he receive
in any case more than he actually paid for the
claim
Thirdly. IL is said that the evidences Of the CLAIM,
and Of title must necessarily be loose and inconci-
sire.
However this may be, the fault does not rest with
the claimants, while the oss will fall upon them
Moreover. they must produce legal evidence. The
United States can justly ask no more.
Fourthly. IL is denied that the United Sfafes er-
changed release Of the claims for release Of the
ancient treaties.
We have seen that, in form at least the treaty OF
$500 was such an exchange Of those equivalents. 1t
was understood to be such an exchange, in effect,
when made. Robert r.. Livingston said:
at will be well recolected by the distinguished
characters who had the management Of the nego-
tiation, that the payment for illegal captures with
damages and indemnities, demanded on the
side and the renewal of the treaties of l77S on
the other; that they are considered Of eqiuaIst
ualue, and that they only formed the subject of the
second article."-Letter TO Idiieyrdnd, 1fpril IL,
1902.
Napoleon, at st. Helena. declared "that the sup
preston Of the second article at put end to
the privileges which France had possessed by the
treaties OF ITS, and annuled the Just claims which
America might have had for injuries done in time
OF peace Conuers sation iDiM Gourgand.
Notwithstanding these and similar contcmpora
neous cxpositions it has been insisted here by two
mir pVf nrod $40 av,l
MIR Dix, as well as by others, that this confessed
form OF the treaty was a mere diplomatic arthce !;
that in fact, 1t was not an exchange Of equivalents
and that the claims for spolations were renounced
because they could not be enforced. and not for
adequate and admitted consideration. Sir, did
Oliver Ellsworth and his colleagues combine to
practice diplomatic fraud upon France? Certain
iy not. Were they then circumvented, If we
should grant that they were, there would yet re-
main John Adams, President in lS00 and Thomas
Jefferson President in 1901 and the Senate of those
years, all equally compromised. Who will inn
peach their intelligence their directness? Sir,
upon whom shall we rely to vindicate own
less deserved and ephemeral faIne if we strike SO
rudey the monuments where these great names
lie sleeping.
If the United States can plead fraud in this or in
any other case, how shall creditors allics indi-
yduals or States learn to distinguish between OBJ
legations which we admit to be valid and those
which we claim right to repudiate'
No, cir; we cannot raise such defence Nor
ccrity Of the United States in prosecuting these
claims. France equally sincere in admitting
them and in preferring her own. Even in her pra-
tica DEGREES she pleaded an overpoweripg pressure
and promised reparation:
''Being informed that some French privateers
have taken vessels belonging to the United States
of America, hasten to engage you 10 take the
most speedy and eflicacious means TO put stop to
this robbery .'-M0nge, Minister of Marine, TO the
Ordomnate,irs Of France, March 80, l793
Thus France was ingenious even in her agony
of social conyulson.
.Althoughit it (thc treaty of l77s) is reciprocal
upon the whole, some provisions more special
ly applicable to the fixed position of the United
States, and others have ausion only to the event
ual position Of France. The latter has stipulated
few advantages, advantages which do not in any
respect injure the United States, and the lawful
ness of which no foreign nation can contest The
French nation iriH neUtr renoasnce Mem."--M Tai
leyrandf 10 Mr.. Gerry, Jan. IS, l79S.
The Convention of 1900 was then, in fact as we'll
as in form, treaty of equivalents.
Can the United States impeach it now on the
ground of the nadequacy of the equivalent received
Certainly not, sir. 1t is too late; the parties are
changed. The merhants' claims are just the same,
whether you received an adequate equivalent. or
exchanged their demands for an insufficient con-
sideration.
Nevertheless, let US pursue the objection You
say that however intrinscally just the claims may
have been, they were renounced because you could
not collect them without resort TO war. reply,
just claim against civilized State is never value
less. If the State refuses be just to- day, it may
become more just Tomorrow. 1t ia true that the
United States were not bound to declare war for
the claims but it is equally true that they had no
right to confscate them without indemnity
Thus we have reached one of the main defenccs
against these claims, viz:
Filthy. That The ancient treaties had become poid
against the United States, and therefore the release
of them by France in 1900 ,cas palueiess.
This argument involves two propositions:
L. That France Fagrantiy rioiated those com
pacts.
g. That the United States perfectly fulfilled them.
L. That France flagrantly violated those COM
pacts The chief object of the treaties of ITS was
the establishment of the liberty sovereignty, and
independence OF the United States, in the war of
the Revolution, and forever afterwards. France
fulfilled her guarantee in the Revolution. But the
merit of that fufment is denied. II was said by
one of my predecessors. (Mr. DIx,) that France
was not moved by generosity sympathy in en-
tering into the treaties, in fulfilling them. Sir
a nation whose pride can condescend so far as 10
receive benefits, vindicates itself fully by the exer
cise of unquestioning and enduring gratitude.
Sir, intevess and ambition do indeed too often
miagc with the purest and highest OF human mo.
tivss. not less of States than of individuals But
the character Of motives must be determined by the
character OF the actions in which they result Sir
in the strait OF the Revolution your agents applied
for aid, not to the King Of France only but also 10
the Emperor OF Germany, to the Kings of Spain and
Prussia, and to the Grand Duke of Tuscany From
neither OF them could they gain 80 much as a pro.
test to discountenance the hire Of mercenaries bv
the German princes to the King of Great Britain. to
be employed with savage Indian tribes against us
hut France yielded money. volunteers, rccogni.
tion' and armed alliance. Was there no merit in
that.
Il 'ss true that in our oppressor France found a
rival to humble and overthrow. But had Britain
no other rival or enemy than Francef If there
were others, why did we not win them TO our side;
France did indeed exact guarantee from the
United States in exchange for her own. But did
we find any other power willing to enter into such
an exchange? Moreover. France conceded to us all
Of the conquests which should be made by the allied
armies in the war of the Revolution except such
would have been useless TO us, and even including
the Canada, of which we bad 9n recently assisted
to deprive her. and she insisted ON no rcmunera-
ton aftcr the war should end. Was there no mag
nanimity in that!
France vas not actuated chiefly by ambition or
revenge in making the engagements Of IT'S. The
pcople and even the court were filled with enthu-
sastic admiration Of the United States and Of their
cause. Fcnelon bad already educated even roy
atty in that cause in the palace and under the eye
Of the grand monarque. The court. the army, the
navy, the rulers and the people of France. had no
= - l...