The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1851-02-06

However this may be, the fault does not rest
with the claimants, while the loss will fall upon
them. Moreover they must produce legal evil
dence. The United States can justly ask no more.
FOurthly. IL is denied that The United States er-
changed release ofts CLAIMS for release of The an
Ce1U treaties
We have seen that in form at least the treaty
of $500 was such an exchange of those equiva-
Tents 1t was understood to be such an exchange,
in effect, when made. Robert r. Livingston said
at will be we'll recollected by the distinguish
ed characters who had the management Of the
negotiation that the payment for illegal captures,
with damages and indemnities, was demanded on
the one side, and the renewal of the treaties of
l77S on the other; that they are considered as of
e1HraeH ralus, and that they only formed the sub
Ject Of the second articleO-Lstter TO Talleyrand,
Aprii II, 1902.
Napoleon, at st. Helena, declared, That the
suppression of the second article at once put an
end to the privileges which France had possessed
by the treaties of 1878, and annulled the just
claims which America might have had for inju-
ries done in time Of Conversation muh
GOwgaRd.
Notwithstanding these and similar contempora-
neous eXpositions it has been insisted here by two
of my very eminent predecessors, Mr.. Wright and
Mr.. Dix, as well as by Others that this confessed
form Of the treaty was mere diplomatic srtifce
"
and that the claims for spoliations were renounced
because they could not be enforced and not for an
adequate and admitted consideration. Sir, did
Oliver Ellsworth and his colleagues combine to
practice n diplomatic fraud upon Frsneel Ger
tainly not. Were they then circumventedl If
we should grant that they were, there wOnld yet
remain John Adams, President in $500, and
Thomas Jefferson, President in 1901, and the
Senate of those years all equally compromised.
iynto or FhaIr
rectness Sir, upon whom shall we rely to vim
dictate our own less deserved and ephemeral fame
ifw strike so ruiely the monuments where these
great names lie sleeping.
IL the United States can plead fraud in this or
in any other case how shall creditors allies in
dividusls or States learn TO distinguish between
obligations which admit TO be valid aud those
which we claim right to repudiatel
No sir; we cannot raise such defence. Nor
could it be maintained, no one questions the sim
oerity of the United States in prosecuting these
claims. France was equally sincere in admitting
them and in preferring her own. Even in her
piratiosl DEGREES, she pleaded an overpowering
pressure, and promised reparaton
"Being informed that some French privateers
have taken vessels belonging to the United States
of America, hasten to engage you to take the
most speedy and eficaCious means to put stop to
this robberyn-lIOnge, Munster of Marine, 10 the
Thus France was ingenious even in her agony
of social CONFUSION.
Although it the treaty of l77Sl is reciprocal
upon the whole some provisions are more specially
applicable to the fixed position of the United
States and others have allusion 5n 70 the event
ual position of France The latter has stipulated
few advantages advantages which do not in any
respect ipjure tie United States, and the lawful
ness OF which 20 foreign nation can contest The
FTsnm manor mill nsUer reH0unce hsm"-M Iaitcy-
RAM 10 Mr Gerry, Jan IS, 1898.
The, Convention of 1850 was then, in fact as
wei as in form, q treaty of equivalents.
IAN the United States impeach it now, on the
Ground of the uddequasy of the equivalent receiv-
ed2 Certainly not, sir. 1t is too late; the par
ties are changed. The merchants claims are just
the same, whether you received an adequate
equivalent or exchanged their demands for on in
suffic consideration.
Nevertheless, let us pursue the objection. You
say that however intrinscally just the claims may
have been, they we're renowned because you could
not COLLECT them without resort to war. i reply,
just claim against civilized State is never value
less If the State refuses to be just to-day it may
become more just tomorrow. 1t is true that the
United States were not bound to declare war for
the claims, bat it is equally true that they had
right to confscate them without indemnity.
Thus we have reached one of the main defences
against these claims, viz.
Finhly. That tie daC,et treaties had LecOme Uoid
MS against the United States and therefore The release
Of them By France IN 1900 mas Udi~fsSS
This argument involves two propositions
l. That France jrdgraHtly violated those COM
pacts
?. That the United States perfectly JaJflled
them.
/. That France 1agrsntly violated those COM
paots The chief object Of the treaties of 1873
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 Revou-
ton But the merit of that fulfment is denied.
1t was said by one of my predecessors, MIR DIX
that France was not moved by generosity or sym
patty in entering into the treaties, or in fulfilling
them Sir, nation whose pride condescend
30 far as TO receive benefits, vindicates itself fully
by the exercise of unquestioning and enduring
gratitude.
Sir, interest and ambition do indeed too often
mingle with the purest and highest Of human
motives not less Of States than Of individuals.
But the character of motives must be determined
by the character of the actions in which they re-
suit Sir, in the strait of the Revolution, your
agents applied for aid, not to the King of France
only, but also TO 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 50 much as a protest to discountenance
the hire Of mercenaries by the German Princes
TO the King of Great Britain, to be employed
with savage Indian tribes against u.s. But France
yielded money, volunteers, recognition, aud arm
ed alliance Was there no merit in thatl
II is true that in our oppressor France found
rival TO humble and overthrow. But had Britain
no other rival or enemy than Francel II there
were others, why did We not win them to our
side France did indeed exact q 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 conquess which should be made
by the allied armies in the war Of the Revolution
except such as would have been useless TO us, and
even including the Canadas Of which we had 50
recently assisted TO deprive her, and she insisted
on no remuneration after the war should end
Was there no msguanimity in that
France was not actuated chiefly by ambition or
revenge in making the engagements Of l77S. The
People and even the Court were filled with en-
thusiastic admiration Of the United States and of
their cause. Feneon had already educated even
Royalty in that cause, in the palace and under
the eye OF the Grand Mouarque. The court
the army, the navy, the rulers and the people of
France, had no standard Of hero hut Washington,
no model Of a philosopher but Franklin, nor of u
State but the United States Seventeen years ago
Itraversed the now deserte and desollte chambers
of the Bourbons of France. Never shall forget
the grstifed pride felt when found among the
family pictures Of the House of Orleans one which
COMMUNICATED the visit of Franklin TO the
Palais Royale, and among the illustrations Of the
national glory at Versailles one that celebrated
the surrender of CORVALLIS The failure Of
Louis XVI as King resulted from his attempt
ing like Nerya in ancient Rome, and Pic Mono in
modern Rome to combine the two incompatible
tkn anla IF W
the maintenance OF regal power. Nor may we
underyalue the aid received from France IL de-
cided the contest IL cost her more than three
hundred millinns of dnllnra and hurried har into