The daily union., 1852-05-08

u
OF France alsr earnest and every effort at
neIoalon had avaed herself OF her natural and lneones
liable right and had treaties to be no longer
valid both parties had esofted 10 armed ioree upon The
ocean The OF bo parties based on the abolition
o those treaties and neither on the side o France nor OF
America was there any vestge remaining oil thal slate OF
alliance which the treaties created. s
know, sir, that there numerous questions grow
ing bstyeen the two nations, and Thai The course OF
things in regard 10 foreign relations was The subject
OF great bitterness of feeling and remark among many
OF the citizens OF this country. But will not stop TO
discuss these que.tions Il is enough for me to know
that the subject received oe investigation OF Congress- OF
the Executive, of the other departments OF the govern
men and that we have IN this document evidence from the
most able men Jefferson and Livingston, and others ot
that dayfuly jusi ing this country in the which
pursued II is too late TO take part with the enemy
in the ancient controversy and, indeed. in judging oi
the rights and duties OF citizens il is Of little consequence
10 determine how the slate of things existing by the act
OF their government was brought about Ii war prevails,
his rights and duties determined by the rules relating
TO that state Of things Whether that war is ustiabie
nnlustifabe. whether he approve or disapproye the
course OF his government in reference TO H. his position is
the same So, also, with regard 10 treaty spualions be
tween two governments Whatever may be the view OF
individual citizens to the propety OF the treaty, hls
rights fixed by heproxsons and he cannot disregard
its obligations. When the indemnity was demanded, France
replied, Stpuae 10 renew the ancient treates and we
will listen to your demand for indemnties. Where
claims thus urged by government on the consid
Grafton OF another the latter may directly refuse to listen
to the demand or to afford remedy In this case war
is the only remedy IT, however, instead OF an unqual
flied REFUSAL the government fit TO to the adj
mission OF the claim conditions which totally lncom
patibe with the interests Of the government making The
demandif spulations are imposed preliminary to the
grant OF an onerous character, totally inconsistent with
the existence of the we'll being of nations, and which
no government could allowt amounts to nothing more
nor less than denial OF indemnity. And such, in my
Judgment was this case. IL was annexing TO the grant
OF indemnities TO American citizens urgently pressed by
their government conditions which totally incom-
patibe with the best interests OF this nation II de-
mandIng condition, that would assume obliga-
tons which had been rejected by all the departments of
the governments proposition not for moment TO be
entertained. Nilil tt a Iia5aaiEl .H ,I0-a4s.a j
The French government held at one time within the
boundaries OF our present limits large amount of terri
tory Suppose, when these claims were urged, the
French government had demanded that should re-
store the ancient possessions and guaranty by treaty
stpuatons the jurisdiction of that portion OF the
try forever, and had proposed this condition TO the
grant OF ndenes; suppose she had annexed 10 the
recognition OF the claims the payment OF ibu,e the de-
livery OF hostages, or the yielding up Of some OF the es-
senal principles Of free government: would any nan
with the heart of apatrot his bosom have declared that
The government ought urge these indemnites to
the acceptance of such conditions' Would any man
coud justify the acceptance of such degrad cond
onss Never for moment, sir, would the project be
tolerated Every would at say the proposition
was equivalent to a denial OF the claims Ii their justice
was admitted by The rejecting them, the
would be still stronger and the ndgnity palpable
The French government refused absolutely unless the
United States would submit to indignlty--o cond-i
ons totally incompatible with their rights free, in.
dependent and sovereigntnation .steg Iahtg RB
such proposition could receive but ansWer-tha
OF an indignant rejection; and such rejection could afford
no ground OF complaint the part of the claimants and
much less could il lay the foundation for any claim
the government II contrary doctrine is TO be applied
in such case there never u claim against any gov
eminent which could thus be avoided by the nation
upon whom il was made IL is competent al any time
TO make any excuse with regard 10 the matter with
out giving full and direct denial And ii refu.
sal to allow such condition. to pay unius, counter
claim thus presented, is TO make the claimants gov
eminent responsible for the amount there is in
which such liability may not be fixed Such was the
character OF the conditions annexed TO the recognition oil
such claims BY the French government Tine United
States authorities did night 10 refuse their acceptance
The effect the utter, unconditional denial
OF the demand Il leit the nations in their original
Oar government urged further negotiation; II continued
ITS warlike operations on the ocean, At proceeded as far
any principle OF comfy of duty TO its citizens
quifed but was compelled TO treat IN manner which,
while il provided for many other claims, left this class
without compensation The wars OF Europe were giving
way 10 general peace To have plunged the naion in
the horrors OF general with France, would have
been madness il reachery the part OF the rulers
But, Mr. President il is claimed, again. that the raca
ton OF this treatyrelecting the second artcle-orever
released France from the obligation TO pay these claims
The idea advanced s that il the treaty had been ratified
originally sent 10 the Senate including the second article,
there could have been complaint the part OF the
claimants but that by expungng the second article, and
by the subsequent construction given 10 IL by Bonaparte
declaring that il put end to the demands the pau
OF both governmens-ihese claims were discharged and
therefore this responsibility rests this government
Now, sir, this second article contained admission
by France of the right to the indemniiies claimed
by us, nor did il concede anything as 10 renewing
the treaties the part OF the United States. On the
contrary expressly denied both sides the existence
Iof any such right the other The French envoys
and the Firs Consul himself had all declared that they
would pay the indemnities unless the benefit OF
renewal OF the treaties conceded 10 them and
on part bad declared with equal hmness that under
circumstances would submit 10 renewal OF the
treaties And this second article provided for the post
ponement OF the two claims IL was, in effect in
definite posponement, Mr. President, OF the whole sub
ect IL is manifest, sir. that this negotiation would
never have been renewed under the provision OF that
second article, unless the pretensons the side
the other had been abandoned. II would never have
been renewed by France until the United States had
| lnqushed their claims TO indemnity. Ii would never
have been renewed the part OF government unless
France had renqushed hef claim TO have these treaties
restored 8riNEy e#ua@5. tH. e4.f. .H.rE- +. fsa.mH
Sir, if that article kept alive the claim for indemnity
in the casemaking II subject Tor future negotia-
ton lit also kept alive the iDndmssbe claim for the
renewal OF those treaties in the other and evidently
appeared 10 the Senate when they struck out that second
article. Now, sir may be asked Why should this ir.
reconeea5e controversy which had already annoyed
the two naons-why should ii be kept alive by the pro-
visions OF treaty. and transferred 10 future period
again TO disturb the two nations and perhaps involve
them in a war II was foregone nclusion--admed
on both sidesbat The Ddemnies would never be paid
by France unless the United States submitted themselves
W the letters and ndgniy OF abandoned and anpued
treaty stipulation, 10 which had been soemnly deter
mined never again 10 yield True policy dictated TO both
parties then not 10 retain, subject OF future strife,
provision which manestly could bring no fruits 10 the
claimants J4H#e
| When Bonaparte added his note, declaring that by
the rejection OF this article both parties renounced their
respective pfe'ensons" to the subject mentioned in H.
he only the true construction 10 the transaction So