The daily union., 1852-05-08

and OF the laws of the United States and the conduct
each natlon 10 the other, IL is opinion that the
citzsns Of the United who aid and adhef,
70 Francs IN acts OF hostility on the nigh sea against th'
United ststes. and their ielow-citzens are guilty o
These quotations are sufficient for the purpose which
proposed 10 myself. by citing IRON the authorizes OF tha
DAY 70 show what was the view then taken upon the
subject And assert that | find nothing elsewhere 10
change The pexion OF these relations. They show
the views OF the three great branches OF the govern
men-he legislative the Judicial, and the executye--on
has been objected to this view of the subject that this
state of things not in all the correspondence and docu
mens relative to the negotiation declared TO be state
Of war between the two governments For this most
excellent reason is palpabe In the negotiation which
was had n reference to the existing difficulties, il was
object OF both parties not to exaspeate bui TO moy
and conciate To effect this object the midest ephels
were used and all terms OF evaporation avoided The
general war IN Europe. scattering ruin and devastation
among the nations involved in IT, cautioned us TO secure
possible exemption from it's destructive vortex. 1t
was our policy 10 use no provocaton, and TO effect q
peace With France at the earliest possible moment. In
whatever language II might be stated the true relations
between the nations could not be disguised The terms
OF the diplomatic correspondence OF the public docu.
mens, eHanatng from official authority, and the language
OF he acts oil Congress on the subject. all show that
peace no longer existed between France and the United
States. Amcable relations had given place to hostli-
ties and finally 10 a state OF open maritime war. III
II is objected again. sir, that during that time of
the documentswhch will be found in this large volume
upon the subjectwthou declaring to exist, speak
declared
that the legislation of Congress only provided for this
anticipated state OF war; admit that the documents,
and some OF the acts of that day. refer 10
an anticipated well as an existing state of things.
They do not deny the existence of war, but some Of
them provide for extensive change which should need
more extensive means and stronger force to cope with
the increased energies of the foe.
Judge Marshall, September, 1900, in his letter as Sec
retay OF State, to Mr. King, described the relations of the
Two countries as follows :7li sNH .ttfr
The regularly accumula,ing injuries sustained from
IN nlanU
to the United States reasonable ground of doubt that
war was TO be expected and that force and force only,
could be relied or the maintenance of rights
sovereign and independent nation Force, therefore,
esorted to but in the very act of resorng to IL our pref
erence for peace was manifest and apparent that
should e'qn to our natural as soon as the
against their repetition be offered" eaHg.t
Washington also, in his letter to Mr. Hamilton, ex-
plains the whole matter upon which this argument has
heretofore been founded In this letter, which was writ
ten May 10. 1898. in reference TO his probable appoint
ment TO the command OF the army he this expes
sion
canno, make up my mind yet for the expectation Of
open war or inoaef words iot formidable invasion by
These, sir, are the words OF Washington: "I cannot
make up my mind for the expectation OF open war, or,
IN other Words he says, giving his definition OF those
words, " for formidable invasion by France" This
was the state OF things which anticipated while the
actual existing relations OF the two countries a
limited maritime war." Nothing less than an actual
invasion oil this coaniry was expected Rumor had,
and over again. declared that warke Europe about
TO lay down her The nations of that
nent were already weared with the conflict, and were
looking wstiuy for the star OF peace, The land and
the ocean had long enough been vexed with conflict and
every interest o the most powerful nations seemed de-
that rance, when released from her with
the nations OF the eastern continent would her
tenuon TO the nation on this side OF the Atlantic, and
ploy her entire force against the United States
why, sur IN the case TO which first referred, in the
official ornion OF the Attorney General question pre-
sented in the OF emissary OF France who
sb bIue nd
supplies OF military kind for the of his government
Preparations were thus made within limits 10
cooperate with the foreign forces which might be sent to
invade our coasts.
The fleets and the armies OF that powerful nation,
fresh IRON the struggle OF many wellfought battle and
glorying IN skill which nowhere but in a contest
with a worthy foe be attained, were expected upon our
coasts, and the horrors OF hostile invasion seemed in
evItable The consideration OF these facts affords key
to unlock the meaning OF every such expression the
documents OF the tines They furnish explanation of
every sentence which has been cited sustain the
allegation that war existed only in anticipation and
in reality. EH
When Washington was urged 10 become once more
the chief OF the American armies, he sought only he
might not be called to the service until the anticipated
invasion was made. The limited war, then confined TO
armed vessels on the ocean, expected soon give
place TO general war; involving every subject OF each
naiionexposing every private vessel TO lawful capture,
every harbor 10 blockade, every town the 10
destruction Ii was expected that the whole force OF the
nation would be called TO combat with the from
the bloody fields oil Europe, and that America should
soon lind within her very borders enemy who could
be repeed only by the strong exeons Of her united peo
pie. FIXING their eye on this impending danger, 1t was
not enough for our citizens TO provide for the present
the future had still greater demands upon them, and of
this exgency they talked and against its pers they pro-
vded. But in none OF the histories the documents
relative to these difficulties, is there anything 10 be found
to contradict the assertion OF the existence OF maritime
war They all show, on the contrary, not only its
istence, but the zeal with which il prosecuted by
both the beigerent parties
But, again. sir has been said by the
OF these claimants that, admitting the existence OF war;
II was war to prevent further injuries only, and
waged to secure any OF their rights obtain indem
nifty for injuries already committed And in confirmation
OF this assertion, it is said that rsprsoi not author.
ized by our government, other lawful OF re-
dress gwen TO the injured parties
Reprtsds are no necessary part OF limited war;
there any Obligation the national government 10 au.
thonze them in behalf OF the citizen Ii is for the
latter, seeking the aid OF his government 10 enforce
claim for injuries committed by a foreign power TO
dictate the manner in which the demand shall be urged
This must be determined by considerations of high ma
honal policy, and by due regard TO those prudential
measures which would best the rights OF the ndi-
vdus while they would put hazard great and par
amount public interest policy lar more likely TO
cure the object OF the injured citizen adopted and
oae which il was fondy hoped would result in peace to
the country, instead Of the unknown evils which threat.
ened a continued and aggravated state OF hosuiies.
more preposterous proposition can scarcely be an
nounced than that the hostile adopted towards
France were taken without design OF securing and en-
forcing the rights OF the citizens who had suffered by
the aggressions of the French flag their commerce
These injuries the burden OF every effort negot
alton, and OF every legislative authorizing or anci-
paiing hostile collision. settlement of these claims
was from the first constantly urged upon France. Min
listers early appointed and clothed with power to
ptfaa