The southern press. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1850-1852, 1851-01-27

reiease by France OF the treaties, and OF hei
clhIms for damages
Filthy. That thus the United States conlis
Gated ten millions of private property OF theil
merchants, and applied it 10 the purchase OF ma
flonal benefits, under Constitution which de
clnrcs that private property shall not be taker
Tor public uses 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; aud as this obligation was
assumed by the United States in lieu Of their
ancient engagements with France, undertqken
to secure the establishment of the national lib
erty and independence, it becomes in equity in
vested with their sacredness and sanctions, and
therefore ought to be regarded rs debt in
Cured for the attainment of the sovereignty,
liberty, and independence of the United States.
Why, them Mr. President, shall not this debt
so ancient, and apparenty so sacred and so just,
be discharged!
proceed to review the reasons which have
been ut various times assigned
First. The Intrinsic justice Of The claims has
been questioned
The very learned and Justly distinguished
senator from Missouri, Mr.. BENTON in for
mer debate, stated that France had justified
these spolatons, on the ground that the ships
seized were in part laden with goods belonging
to Engishmen, who had borrowed the names of
Americans. ! have not been able to find evil
dence to support such pretension. On the
other hand, the diplomatic language of the United
States constantly claimed that the sufferers were
American citizens. Sir, il these claims are splI-
rious, then it must be true that either Ellsworth
Marshall, Pinekney, Monroe, Morris, Jefferson
Ai,u,a IL A..
rant Of the fact, that they colluded to dcfraud
France. Neither position can be true. The
claims are therefore just
An objection raised by the senator from Vir-
GINA Mr.. HusrER] falls under the same head.
1t is that the French government have list or
table Of the claims submitted in 1903, which was
presented to the French government by the
American commissioners, and which shows that
the French as the senator says, supposed that
they P id, under the convention Of 1903, all the
claims OF American citizens | have this table
before me. Ii the honorable senator will refer
to the treaty Of 1900, he will find that it stipu
lated for the payment of the class, specified in
that table only--to wit: debts owing on con.
t:acts-and that the claims for the spoations
now in question were omitted expressly on the
ground that they were excluded by the treaty of
1900. Here is the article of that treaty:
The debts contracted by one of the two ma
tons with individuals of the other or by the in
dividuas of one with the individuals of the other
shall be paid, or the payment may he prosecuted
IN the same manner as if there had been no mis-
understanding between the two States Blu
hts clause shall mol ertend 10 indemnities claimed
on account Of captures or confscaiions.", Volume
8 Of STAT. al Large, p. 1870.
Then, what is left out of this table +? The
reduced amount, in the apprehension of the
Senator from Virginia, Mr. HUSTER,] is just
exactly that portion of the claims left out of the
treaty, and which is the subject of the present
bill
Secondly. It has been objected in late years
that The claims belonged 10 spectators. Ger
tanly few Of the sufferers survive, and soon all
will have departed But the claims are property ;
they were the property of those sufferers As
property they could be transferred and trans
mitted by assignments, will and administration.
These are only modes in which property is per-
petuated and this capabity of being perpet,l-
ated Is inherent in it, and is ALWAYS rightfully
and necessarily recognized and protected by all
governments, with proper limitations. Indi-
vidua' property is the ballast of the State Wo
to the State that casts it overheard That
State ia sure TO drift away, and to break upon
the rocks. But the allegation that spectators
have purchased these claims is denied, while the
bill protects the public if it be true None but
lawful assignee can take any benefit from the
bill, nor can he receive in any case more than he
actually pad for the claim
Thirdly: II is said That The eridences of the
clam and Of atls must necessarily be loose and
ilconclusire
However this may be, the fault does not rest
with the claimants, while the loss will I'll upon
them Moreover, they must produce legal
evidence. The United States can Justly ask no
more.
Fourthly. II is d.nied That HE United States
exchanged a release Of he claims for release Of
The ancient treaties.
We have seen that in form at least the treaty
of 1900 was such an exchange of those equiva-
Tents. 1t was understood to be such an ex-
change, in effect, when made. Robert r. Lv-
iugston said
sit will be well recoected by the distinguished
characters who had the management Of the ne
gotiiiion, that the payment for Illegal captures,
with damages and iudemnitcs, was demanded
on the one side and the renewal of the treaties
of l77S on the other; that they are considered
as OF equivalent ralue, and that they only formed
The subject of the second article Letter 10
IaAewand, April II, 1902.
Napoleon, at st. Helena, declared. "That the
suppression of the second article at once put an
end to the privileges which Frsnce had possessed
by the treates of l77S. and annulled the Just
claims which America might have had for iniu
res done in time of peace - Conversation ,ciih
Gourgand.
Notwithstanding these and similar contem-
poraneous expostions it has been insisted here
by two of my very eminent predecessors Mr.
Wright and Nr. Dix, as well "a by Others
that this confessed form of the treaty was n
mere diplomatic artifice that in fact il was not
an exchange of equivalen s and that The claims
for spoliations were renowned because they
could not be enforced, and not for an adequ IT,,
and admitted consideration. Sir did Oliver
Ellsworth and his colleagues combine to practice
u diplomatic fraud upon France Certainly not
Were tieg then circumvented If we should
grant that they We're, there would yet remain
John Adams, President in 1900, and Thomas
Jefferson. President in 1871, had the Senate of
those years, all equally compromised Who
will impeach their intelligence or their direct