The southern press. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1850-1852, 1851-01-25

vindicass thsslAnctss Of Weehisgton and ths
reputation this country fom tn rsproach
which otheryee @Suld cast INA them. Il
were to se}ect mo4GmeRts1Pon which bis
reputation ~ q tkesm& m1y b. seid to rest
most durably, it would b., perhapss that very
procaulatoRofn neutrality which Judge Marshall
has said was the foundation Of tho celebrated
doctrine Of Don-intervention in foreign affairs.
II were to select period when he showed
the qualities Of wisdom and moral herois,n in
the highest degrees, it would be during that time
ofalmost universal war amongst the nations Of
Europe, when he may be said 10 have compelled
the peace Of the United States with the rest OF
the world; when he held the even tenor OF his
way, unmoved BY clamors ut home, unterrified
by menaces from abroad, and afforded to Ameri-
can genius that opportunity which it so much
needed to lay deep the foundation and spread
wide the lines which marked the boundaries OF
the great fabric Of American power and prosper
ity. His love OF truth and justice, for which
he Is so celebrated, was never more sgnaly
evnced than in bis intercourse with other nations
Sir, In the chaplet which crowns the efligy OF
that immortal man, perhaps no leaf is more inn
peTishablc than the one which the stranger has
contributed to testify his sense Of the wisdom
and justice, of the moderation and irmness,
which marked his course in his relations with
him. l regard the reputation OF this country
for fair dealing, the reputation and character Of
Washington for justice and truth, al worth more
than all these French claims, ii they were ten
times told. But, as sud before, it's not neces-
sary to the argument to examine this question.
1t is sufficient TO show, ms think have shown,
that the French before 1903, never did ask or
desire us to execute that guarantee, and there
fore they have nothing to complain OF in that re-
gard. have shown that we were justified by
the course Of France in putting an end to these
treaties (; have shown, think, that they were
not justified in violating their treaty stipulations
towards us by anything we had done; and, in
doing so, believe have made out that branch
Of argument.
But permit me to pause moment here. The
advocates Of tho French claims will prove too
much, if they succeed in proving, that the French
were justified il their violation Of treaty stpu-
lations with US on account of violations on our
part. lfthcy succeed in proving that VIC failed
to observe the faith Of treaties towards France,
they will prove that France was justified in re-
gardng that treaty as she did regard t--a per-
feet nullity. If they prove this, they will Fl.
that they have proved themselves out of court.
II you take away the class of cases which they
will thus destroy, and the classes paid under the
convention of 1900, it will be found that there
il but very little left.
The Secretary Of State, Mr. Pickering--in
1899, think it was--in his instructions to our
commissioners, said that the two most interest
ing classes Of American claims were, first, that
class OF claims where the French seized enemy s
goods, or goods asserted by them to belong to
the enemy, in American ships; and next. that
class WI they seized our ships for want Of a
role deqlspage Now, it is demonstrabe, in re-
lation to the seizure Of enemy's goods in Ameri-
can ships that if the treaties were null and void
we could lay no claim to indemnity for them
under the laws Of nations. Mr. Adet, in his re-
port, which has been furnished us by the sena-
tor from Connecticut, in an extract from the
code diplomatique, says, and says very Justly,
that If the treaties were out of existence, the
Americans could not have justified their claim
according to the law of nations refer now to
the greater part Of those claims which were not
paid under the convention of 1900. 1t is clear
that we could lay no claim for indemnity for the
seizure of enemy's goods in American ships, un-
der the law of nations and if we could Law no
claim against France for it, no claim could be
made against our own Government for greater
privileges than its citizens were entitled to IN
der the laws Of nations If the friends of this
measure should make good their argument, they
strip the claimants Of all right to indemnify for
this class of seizure.
Now, how is it with respect to those vessels
which were seized for want Of role Feqmpage .
That was certainly a violation, and n gross vio-
lation, Of the treaty of amity and commerce,
because that treaty had provided that the vessels
of the two nations should be suffered to 90 free,
provided they had letters which had certain re-
qusites; and having satisfied these conditions,
nothing more was to be implied as required than
that each nation should furnish sea letters ac.
cordng to its own form. That was the fair
construction of the treaty. But if the treaty was
null and void, ii becomes very different ques-
ton, whet3r the French had not perhaps a
right to demand the production of the role
Teqmpage? We must remember that this was
an old ordinance, not trumped up for the occa-
son, not brought into being for our benefit, not
to operate merely to vex our commerce, but it
was made in the days Of Louis Fourteenth it
had been practised upon by France towards
neutrals since that time. 1t was an ordinance of
which no complaint was made SO far as have
been able to ascertain, except by us, and which
perhaps we would not have complained of, but
for our claims under the treaty to better treat
ment. And, in point Of fact, there is a letter in
the correspondence to which have already re-
ierred from Mr. King when our minister to
England, in which he states that the grievance
was abated in that respect for our vessels,
having found out what was required, provided
themselves with the proper papers. | do not
say that it is indispensable that under the laws
Of rations France had right TO seize our ships
for want of this role dequipage but say that
many plausible arguments may be advanced on
that side of the question. Under the laws Of
nations, it was at least doubtful question, be-
cause that was an old provision of France. which
had been acquiesced in by neutrals, which had
not been complained Of by. them for perhaps
more than half century, and believe for
century. Up to the time of the war of the re-
volution, France had always been remarked for
her liberality towards the commerce Of neutrals
She was so esteemed by them during her prac-
tice under this ordinance, and she had therefore
much to say in favor Of its legality.
If, then, we should subtract from these claims
to indemnitics these two classes which Mr.. Pick
ering said were the most important, where sci
cure was made Of an enemy's goods, and where
our ships were seized for want of role dequi-