The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1851-01-23

such violations OF treaty siipalaons justified
in putting end all the treaties then subsstng be
tween and if we Were justified in putting end 10
these treaties they then existed in 1898, il follows
clearly they not in existence in 1900 This follows
clearly, because have IT, the authority of NJ Roe
derer. Of the French commissioners who negotiated
from Code Dtpomai,que) that the United
States commissioners felt bound by the OF Congress,
and never did admit for moment that the treaties
~ iorce. The American negotators says M Roederer,
considered themselves bound by the act OF Congress
which had declared the treaties nall and decaded that
impossible they could recognise them II the treaties
then, We're not in force. there nothing upon which
the French could found these pretensions II they had
no valid petensons then there valuable consideIa-
ton in exchange for which could have sacrificed
know that in some OF the speeches this subject
Il has been urged that the treaty OF peace, the
oa Q, isoo WAS Was, one o. the considerations i9r Which
its history will find that such far from the fact
1t ratified by the French government when it
thar should negotiate hereafter in relation to those
ndemnites. This showed clearly that the French were
willing to give this treaty. and put end to hosiles,
whether we did or did not abandon those claims The
only pretence OF valuable consideration be found
IN these Pretensions to which have just referred and
which have examined.
But sir, there is position which, il successfully
maintained. would perhaps be fatal to the argument
which have made against the existence of treaty OBJ
legations in 1900, as between the United Stales and
France and that is, that the violation OF treaty spu-
latons by the French was but a Just retaliation for
wrongs committed by US on them That is the ques-
lion which | now propose to examine. think can
show that there were no wrongs on our part Of
which they had any right 10 make serious complaint
They complained because did not grant to them the
pretensions OF which | have spoken. need not reca-
pltulaie the argument that question. We did no
wrong to them because we did no, grant such exava
CANT pretensons They complained. too, OF Jays treaty.
because they said we suffered the English to give
less than rights under the Laws OF nations, because
suffered the English than the French
treated under their treaty OF amy and commerce Ac
cor ling 10 their treaty free ships made free goods, and
according TO Jays treaty ths English had right
enemys goods in neutral shpsa matter which gave them
just grounds of complaint, because il provision
strictly in accordance with the laws Of naiions all
ered provisions to be made contraband The fact OF the
that there al that day controvered point
in the practice Of nations in relation 70 this law Of con-
traband as applied 10 provisions We settled i with
England by compromise. We did not exactly declare
provisions contraband but allowed the British to
prevent our vessels when loaded with provisions from
entering French ports but they not allowed
the cargo. or do more than divert them from their voy
age they obliged indemnify the owners for the
cargo and profits i was on its lace compromise Of
disputed point in the law OF nations; and having thus
secured our rights neutral nation nearly posi-
Die, was just cause OF complaint TO the French tha.
we could not do more and settle every disputed point in
our own favor. Nor il for them to complain.
1898 they had treated worse and seized both vessel
and cargo when loaded with provisions.
But there another complaint upon which the
from Connecticut rested with especial emphasis.
Mr. Livingston. in his report, says that did not al
low the French the exclusive right OF asylum to which
they entitled under the l7lh article OF the treaty
of aniy and commerce The senator from Connection,
said the cath article OF jays treaty precisely
similar TO the nth article OF the treaty OF commerce be-
tween the United States and France. and nfers from
thence presume. that the latter violated the first II
he had examined the articles with his usual attention.
he would have found two most material differences.
By the 18th article OF the treaty Of amity and CON.
merce, the French allowed to bring prizes. and
sail any time whIthersoever they pleased By the
cath article OF Jays treaty, the British were allowed 10
bring prizes. and sail whithersoevef they pleased
speedily possible In the article in Jays treaty there
special reservation OF the rights which other
tions possessed under former treaties. While we al
low ed the French any length OF time they chose within
which 10 hoist sail with their prize.. We allowed the
British 10 do 90 speedily as possible The two rea-
ties. construed together, violated no right which France
had acquired from She could bring in her prizes.
from the British. but the British could not bring
in French prizes 10 our ports Sach was the practice
for some time under the treaties Tor we hnd the Seere-
tary OF State in 1875 corresponding with the governor
OF Virginia the subject, and using all the exerons
in his power TO prevent the English from bringing in
French prnes. IL Is probably true, as Mr Monroe sux-
gesed OF his letters TO the French government,
that with all efforts 10 the contrary, there might
have been occasions when British vessels in, con.
trsry to our laws and orders. Bat here, too,
JUSTIFIED bad departed from the treaty OF ITS so far
10 have permitted the British to have brought 10
Fr1ch przes; for IS notorious that the French bad
commenced long before and continued to perPeaie out
will now refer 10 another subec, which has been re-
lied upon justification for the French mean
alleged failure 10 execute the guarantee OF winch have
spoken. Mr. President, have shown that the French
asked desired ia TO execute il and that there
FORE is Just OF complaint But choose TO go
l,ile further into this matter for the purpose OF vnd
eating the reputation OF the country and the character OF
Washington himself, both Implicated in the charge
OF having violated treaty -tpuzons and the solemn
obligations to iriend and ally for II Is certainly true
that he would have consented 10 that
xnee in the then existing between France and Great
Britain reproach, therefore, mus, upon his
for having deliberately determined 10 violate solemn
a covenant If in truth he was bound by H.
SIR The opinion OF Washington. OF Wa<hngion's
cabinei-snl think the opinion Be successfully
msniaiueI-thai bound 10 execute thai
guarantee II subject upon which he consulted his
cabinet Two OF them re-ervei Their opinions, and two
Of thetbe Secretary O the Treasury and the Secretary
OF War-leclareI that were not bouad 20 execute IT,
for two reasons. giyen in MtrshalFs Lfe OF Washing
ton Oae was, that woald CON promise safety. and
II might be. existence, TO attempt IL The other
that alliance with france defensive alliance
and being defensive alliance. we could not be asked to
engage offensive or 10 execute thai guaraoe~
Both OF these opinions right according TO the dtos1 OF
writers the laws OF nations and according to the pfae
tce OF civilized communities
In relation 10 the rs, excuse. thai i, xoasd oonpro
nice safety, aDd night he. existence. who
doubt the fact That valid iof failing
eyecuie treaty becaa.e ~ Likely TO prove ruinous
affirmed BY the besi authorities the snbjeci. Va,tei
book q ch H. S0) expressly lays dow the doesnpe,
that treaty - likely 10 be ruinous and tends
promise the safety OF the country the govenmea, not
could lax fully enter into such treaty II th~y
forehzas il ~ould iurD out 10 Be We shall ras
presently iha, tins not merely precept bat practice
Nations hare IA such made that ercaee asd the
exsase has been considered iex,srnaie
The other excuse. that ]; defensive alliance and