The daily union., 1852-05-08


such decision give 10 the party the character OF creditor
or claimant upon the espofs government ios any ndem
nifty. The latter assumes no obligation 70 him. and
recognises no new relations with hing Wheaton
Int. Law, s9-99)
All that remains to the claimant afer such adudea-
lion Is his rsbt 70 apply TO bis soyngoyepmsniora ior as
III the przecourt OF The last resort is declared contrary
10 The justice OF the and in violation OF The principles
OF natoa law or OF existing trealies ihe capture and
the condemnation become the act ol he State Tor which
the sovereign is responsible the government OF The
claimant" When that final decision is obtained. tand
every appeal must be taken before this can be regarded
as mali the claimants legal rights are terminated All
ter the sentence OF the inferior COURT says Rutherford
has been thus confirmed, the foreign claimants may
apply to their own State for remedy al they think
themselves aggrieved When the matter s earned thus
lar, the two States become The parties The conrover
sy" (Rutherford, Inst, VOLUME 2, 9, ~ From the
documents now before us, II is manifest that an many
oi these cases appeals were never taken and conse-
quenty the right TO make il question between the two
governments never arose. When such hnal decision
was had 1t is conclusive the individual pates and
all further proceedings between the two governments
And his own government can urge indemniiies the
ground only that the decision OF courts is ndsnity
manifest injustice 70 the nation. Il becomes. then,
question OF naonal and not OF individual right II IS
true that where indemnity of that kind is obtained, the
benefit is allowed to the persons who may have been di
ecy injured by the loss o their property but so far as
the nature OF the claim urged by the government
cerned is of the character il is where
onal vessel is destroyed where any other indgny
is committed upon national rights In other words il
BECOMES national question, and not aqueshon oil indi-
SO strongly have nations been accustomed 10 regard
such judicial dscisons Of pzecous as conclusive, that
the right OF the nation to 90 behind them and de-
mand compensation has often been denied II denied
by Great Britain before the commissioners under the trea
y OF 1904 II was contested by the Danish government
when the United States demanded similar repara'on.
The rule is now however, settled that such epaTaion
may be demanded by the government of the injured par
y; but ii is confined cases, in the words of Vatie Of
"refusa OF justice, palpabe and evident inJusice
m .f 4l8f
II that be then what was the position OF the claim
ants where their undertook 10 obtain redress
national character itself with other questions then
dividing the governments, and became subject 10 the
rules That which would Justify the abandonment
of claims for other national injuries ndgnities would
Justify the course TO these demands. .lt anb
The claim for injury committed on one individual could
be stronger than that done the whole in its national
character and whenever in the course OF Efforts Tor
adjustment OF all subsistng difficulties, it became mani
fest that every interest could moi be secured there was
principle which required other claims TO be sacrificed to
these the dire evils OF continued war TO be incurred
Between the United States and France most compli-
Gated state Of affairs existed Claims aud connterclams
urged and questions OF right and OF injuries OF the
most delicate and difficult character almost without
Der, presented. The restoration OF amcable rea-
ons involved disposition of all OF them, and these par
ties have no more right complain that they did sue.
ceed in regard their particular claim than other citi
that in other matters Of purely national character
redress was not secured
The adjustment of national differences, do not believe
that an be found where the government
gng the clam of lis citizens for injuries committed their
property was ever held responsible for succeeding
he demand By The final adiustme Of the national DIFF
cnes the government discharged snbsisling avail
able claims OF the petitioners the captos OF the
sells the French government. They performed their
whole duty towards the claimants They urged the de-
nand far could he done consistent with The national
dignity, and paramount national interest; and when
cess became impossible they performed duty we'll
tho IN he nv w furh hpr
pertnacity in the case .# sa#E tbH sts@ fs2
:, But Mr. President il it is asserted that the govern
received valuable consideration for the release OF
those claims This proposition deny. II anything was
received expressed in the expunged article OF
the treaty existing between the two governments. an
indemnity claimed by France These indemnities were
founded on alleged breaches OF the treaties, and
sumed that they continued in force up 10 The time
OF the treaty of 1900 This denied by our govern
on our part This had been solemniy decided by the
nation, and fully justified by the justice of the
and by the rules OF International law. 90 IL sl, Is
What then, the value Of the claims against this
Nothing nothing. They were character
zed in an explanatory note which added by Nspo-
leon Bonapare to the treaty as pefenioas OF the parties
Presented BY the French government Tor the purpose OF
avoiding the adjustment Of claims urged by the United
States for ndemnes, they stand only IN the character OF
excuses for rejecting demand Thus advanced they
amounted 10 refusal listen TO claims for these in
IDENTITIES And as such denial had been given direct
terms, we left with the single alternative OF urging
them further or prosecuting them by punging the ma
already ctimsoned the with blood and involved
most OF the nations OF Europe. ,rh ran
Bu again, by striking out this second article OF the
treaty. the Senate did not even receive so much as a
discharge from the "preensons Of the French govern.
ment That section declared that the parties could not
agree upon the subject in questoneach denying the
claim Of the other apd provides that the parties would
negotiate further upon these subjects at convenient
time" This put IT in the power OF either party al any
time 10 defeat settlement OF the "pretensions OF the
other In striking II out there cancellng OF adj
mit,ed claims due TO citizens II only putting
end TO the controversy in regard 10 "preiensons which
were utterly denied the part Of each naton and which
il was evident would never be admitted I'd .f# 5a
The very statement OF the claims in the article pro-
claimed il as deferred subject Of contention between
the two nationsa quarrel postponed--whch might de-
stfoy the anicable relations Of the two countries but
which manifestly could secure no advantage TO the
ton or the claimants All that effected by expunging
ii was simply a REIMBURSEMENT Of the proposition 10
gotlae further upon these subjects al convenient me
and this constitutes, " anything the alleged consldera
iion received by the United States for the abandonment
of these claims Now, what the value oi this right
to negotiate at convenient time upon this subjecl The
claimants allege that is the full OF their de-
mands They il though things were secured
by this second article OF the ireayfrst that subsequsnt
negotiations would be effective; and secondly that that
negotiation would result 10 the paymeat by France OF the
full amount OF their claim. Now, from the very nature
OF the IT Is manifest there was not the least prac-
tcabiy that either OF these things could have
happened Would France have found. in the words
o that article, "a convene nj tme TO enter into treaty
stipuating 10 pay these indemnes Without our re.
newa OF the treaties, would she have reinquished
her preensions and paid TO the amounts ol de.
msnd Surely not Such a result was by The terms OF
the article eit-wh express denial oi those rights
to future negotiation or other words, 10 a voluntary
consent oi France Unless she gave this voluntary
sent, could have obtained negotiation TO in