The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1852-05-06

State. ins letter to Mr.. Hammond. dated September ..
I793, says;
Though the admission Of the prizes and pdvaeeIs OF
France is exclusive, 10 the effect Of treaty. made long
ago, Tor valuable consideration" R6eeaot
Such construction Of the privileges OF France
prior 20 treaty with England. After that time, on
The 3oth Of June. 1885, Mr Pickering. Secretary OF State
addressed Mr. Ellsworth. chief justice OF the United
States relative TO the sale oil prizes taken BY French
privateer from the British, saying:
~ presume your decision was, that the sales should nor
be made !, appearing that the psmssion Of sach saes
treaty with Great Britain"
On the 10th OF July 1885, the Secretary OF State wrote
to Mr. Ons. district attorney at Boston. saying
oders have been issued from the Treasury Department,
by foreign pvaeers commissioned by amy prince State
at enmity with Great Britain"
And again, in report to the President, of July is,
1896, he says e.l4
.rne twenty fourth article OF the British treaty having
Of their PRICES ports Of the United States. the Score
cuar letters tho collectors conio The rcstricons
contained in that article, the law Of the land This was
necessary formerly the collectors had been IN
sructed admit entry and sale the prizes brought
into ports" "ssn Docs lH seas 18th Corgrs", vOt O.
pages 345-S
Thus it appears that the privileges guaranteed by treaty
to France admitted by Secretary of State were
denied her after our treaty with her enemy ~
II is well-setiled national law that sovereign, al
ready bound by treaty, cannot make others contrary to
the first. Vatte says,
Gas the engagements of treaty impose the hand,
perfect obligation, they produce, on the other perfect
ofhm with whom have contracted, and thus TO do him
injury sovereign already bound by treaty, canno,
terror treaty found point contadic that is
more ancient the new treaty null with respect 70 that
point dsposng of thing that no longer IN the power
Of him who appears to dispose oft"
What justification had we for this violation. by Jays
treaty, OF treaty obligations to France None what
ever Was France then pursuing course TO provoke it
The very reverse. Our previous difficulties with her
were mostly adjusted. jays treaty was signed Novem-
ber 49, 1894 On the 10th of that month, nine days pre-
vous Mr. Monroe had effected such an arrangement that
he was able to write that sa
Gan the objects which his note Of Sd September
tended Yielded except that Of allowing our vessels to
protect enemies goods"
And that was also Yielded early in January following.
And on the 2oh of February, 1895, the President in
message to Congress, says:
sit affords the highest pleasure to inform Congress
that harmony rsigns between the TWO republics Franoe
cizens) in train OF being discussed with candor and
amicably adjusted"
The time and circumstances under which formed
the treaty with England divest US OF all petence that the
conduct of France authorized tie violation OF her rights
We urge no such justification. lSee note 3D. Had
France then, no claim on US Tor damages under the
treaty of arny and commerce Might she not point 10
the property lost in consequence OF the refusal OF
ports asylum for her ships and prizes, and claim,
before the tribunal of the civilized world that we would
not fulfil treaty engagements, should be held
sponsible for the damages
have shown, MIR President that there was full
consideration in the claims OF France under The treaties
for the release OF the claims OF citizens; and as they
claims against the government representing the
whole people, the cost of their discharge ought no, TO fall
upon single class.
Blu, is not essential to the liability OF our government
that should be OF the opinion that the claims Of France
just II is sufficient that they were SO regarded BY
that nation. They were seriously urged, and, being
found onerous and embarrassing, il became matter OF
national importance to be relieved from them. Having
obtained that relief, should pay the price OF the pur
chase we had SO snxiousy sought and 30 benehcialy
effected e
Mr. President, there is another view Of this subject,
which wish to submit TO the Senaie as full fair, and
complete answer TO all that has been urged by the honor
oble senator from Michigan, (Mr FELcH and all that
urged by the honorable senator from Virginia, Mr..
HuSrER in his able speech Snd report at the last ses
sion OF Congress against the bill They contend that the
claims Of France, under the treaties, which
changed for the claims OF our citizens, were OF no value
and that therefore our government received no consider
alton for the release and Is not bound to pay the claim
ants whose demands they gave up. Why the claims
OF France OF value Because France first violated the
treaties her part say the honorable senator's and thus
released from their obligations But how did she vo.
late them By the seizure and confscaon OF the ships
and cargoes these very claimants twas their proper
ty them that purchased immunity from the treaties.
the proposition fairly on the hypothesis assumed by
the senators II we were exonerated from treaty OBJ
legations by OF the conduct OF France 10 sezng
and con6scatng the property OF the claimants, was
their property that paid the price o the mmuaity What
obligations and what immunity They the obligations
that secured ally, without whose aid our Independence
could not have been achieved when II was and which
subsequent events had made that the honora
BILE senator from Michigan regarded their recognition
inconsistent with national security II was immunity
from debt OF the revolution. procured by the property
Of the claimants and the whole burden Of the purchase
ought not 10 be thrown upon them
come now, Mr. President, 10 the consideration OF the
elsins Of citizens against France.
is admitted that they once Just demands against
that government
Were they srhnguishsd by vr
Ii would seem to be sufficient reply to the question
that there war declared, no war waged, no
nised by either nation, and treaty OF peace
The acts referred to as establishing the fact OF
prove the The act OF May %, l79s, is the
relied on for that purpose, and will read il:
Whercas armed vessels sailing under authority or pre-.
of authority from the republic OF France have COM
mued depred aous the commerce oi the United States
and have recently captured the vessels and property OF
citizens thereof and the In violation OF the
law nf nations and treaties between the United States and
the French nation therefore,,
And then follows its only section, in these words:
$50 l. BE Il enacted &c, That IL shall be lawful Tor
tho President of the United States, and he hereby author.
ized and direct the commanders OF the armed
vessels belonging the Uoed States to seize, take, and
bring any port OF tho United States TO be proceeded
vessel which shall have committed shs be found hover
ing the OF tho United States for the purpose OF
mitting, depredaons the vessels belonging c-
thereof aud, also, reiake ship vessel of any
citizen citizens OF the United States. which may have
been captured by any snch armed vessel"
This il the act which is regarded as the declaration OF
war; and yet il will be that II authorizes II
to bring into port for condemnation those vessels thai
capturing ships did not authorize the capture
OF any private unamed ship of the French Oar cruisers
having captured eleven French merchant ships courts