The daily union., 1852-05-08


claimed on account Of captures and conhscatons In
The second they are designated as prizes whose con-
demnstion basb or shall be confirmed" 10 the dipo
scbed az claims foundedo captures or eonhscations
the illegally 81 which has rot BEEN admitted - 5,e
The drnefer Phraseology Of these documents describes
sing ciass o cases 10 viii claims OF indemnity Tor
vessels captured and taken into the ports OF France and
condemned by the prize conits oi thai country on ac
q @ ss e naSai @S q
These, aPpehepd, are the only cases not already pro-
vded for BY With France and consequently the
only cases for which these claimants can ask redress
lam now prepared. MIR, President, 10 return 10 my in.
qui Whether these claims have been admitted by
France as Just claims against the government, alleged
sustsn.ae these demands Let us look again 10 this
book OF documents for the purpose OF determining
whether during that negotiatonor believe Il contains
everything on ihe subect-the French government ever
made The alleged admission, Up 10 179s, have the
most express declaration already cited that the recogni
tion was expressly refused by France Our commission
state. in many words that the condemnation OF
these vessels by the prze courts Of France not ad
miited 10 be Illegal and that the claim for indemnity was
denied The instructions io Messrs Ellsworth, Dave.
and Murray entering their duties Of negotiation the
American ENJOYS, directed them 10 insist, sine qua
non ontu compensation for all losses BY our citizens,
same issifacyoas piohbed the revival in whole or ID
part OF the former treaties winch had been declared null
by act OF Congress The first project OF treaty was pre-
sented 70 the French ambassadors by our own penpoten
taries for their consideration and in that document
distinction was drawn between the cf depredatons
Which were committed prior to the passage Of the act o
Congress Of 179s and those committed subsequently,. 1t
was provided that in all cases OF complaint existing prior
TO the passage Of that ACT the rights OF the claimants
&c % ns he leaes @ con
and for subsequent depredations the law OF nations
should be the nasis Of the decisions
On the 9Th OF May, 1900, the French plenpoentares
reply 70 this proposition. They agree = upon the expe
diency OF compensation" The compensation proposed
by the American ambassadors, twill be recolected com
plised the two classes OF claims before mentioned first
those which France had long before admitted and ceased
to resist and; second. the cases embraced in this bill,
which she bad senuousy denied The letter states
indemnity. The rue sense Of the mutual obligations Of the
treaties must be determined that the examination OF
these principles should precede that Of The OF in
demhihcaon;" that ..indemnifcation can result only
from ayowed violation of acknowledged obligation
but obiectng % the portion Of the proposition which pro-.
posed e regard NE treaties OF no effect after the act Of
selves further on the subject They declare however,
thatthe former treaties and consular convention be
the only foundations OF the negotiations and they de-
clare that in admitting the principle of compensation it
was as consequence OF ancient treaties, and not as
the preliminary o the new one" r. I.las
Their HegotIalon soon led to most explicit declara
ton on both sides The French sought to renew the
former treaties and would consent to open commission
to settle these CLAIMS only on condition of their valid
istence being secured by renewal Without this they
tery and uniformly denied 10 recognise such claims
The American ambassadors the other hand were ex
pressy Instructed II no manner to recognise them in whole
and wherevern all the proceedings this class OF
demaRds is spoken OF, from the opening of the negoa
lion down Their express reputation in the conventions
Senss Feoe sheI Sss F.s % :. Slams = on,om
and be declared that the ancient treaties ought 10 be the
basis q nesoation without which the Claims would not
know th at after was ascerained that the French
government would not admit these claims TO indemnify
unless we would renew the ancient treaties, negotiations
were attempted on different basis
1hus far the negolatoTs on the part OF the United
States acted within the scope of their authority but
without securing an adjustment OF the difficulties
xIt thnttt
made between plenipoentiaries OF the two nations
Among Others was proposition TO renew the treaties
IL A. iotn 30 modified thai eiiher party should be a,
amount Of money 10 make further notifications in their
provisions And another proposed 10 renew them, with
the condition that either party might abolish them alto
gether on similar payment 10 one OF The propositions
hve millions OF dollars, think, was mentioned the
sum to be paid for that purpose In the Arguments here
the snm thus specified represents the value derived by
the government from getting rid Of these treaties and
that this "a the consideration which the government
celved oT abandoning these claims. They take this sum-
therefore, as the amount which should epad TO them by
their own government as the measure OF their damages
occasioned by striking out OF the treaties OF 1903 the ar
,icie relative TO indemnies. The iaacy OF such rea.
sonng must be apparent In the first place, the commits
aioners themselves went beyond any authority which
they had received TO negotiate in regard this matter
for was placed upon their list OF uiima,a that they
should never consent TO the restoration OF those treaties
either ~ whole or In part Moreover, such aproposton
ii consented 10 by the envoys, in all probability would
have received the OF the Senate or of the
Executive. In any event, there could be greater alb
surdIty than TO take thus stated the criterion OF
amount 10 be paid 10 these petitioners. II was mere
option TO pay or not and fixed estimate OF value
The supposoa that II is rs founded the assump-
hon that the United States yonid pay that 10 ao-
Togaie the treaties. But in truth no such Willingness
was expressed-no such obligation implied I; and il re-
manned Tor time TO determine whether should be in
jured BY paying the amount, benefited By receiving
iron France. -f#
Bat is idle pursue this subject The propositions
were without authority and were accepted. The
convention OF $500 succeeded this aborlige proposal
Alter most careful examination OF the whole ol these
documents and OF the arguments made in urging
those claims heretofore, confess that have not been
dence which uses The assertion, admitted be inds.
pensabe 10 their validity, that the French government
admitted Tor instant that they just claims for
which Liability existed. Where is the evidence OF
any admission upon their part TO be found, if not
in these documenlsl believe that this volume contains
all the correspondence, the journals Of plenipotena
mes, and the OF the agents oil the two
governments relating to the II not 10 this volume,
where will gentlemen resort for evidence to establish
this assertion that The French government has admitted
these clAmsl They have resored to subsequent
menis, loose and Indefinite.
An effort has been made TO find II elsewhere. Subse-
quent siatemens--made BY individuals OF the most
spectacle character ruehave been adduced as proof
One such expression is cited from Bonaparte-while in
hs exile in ST. Helenahe referred TO the treaty Of 1903
Another is from letter OF Mr. Livingston in 1903 and
loose and Indefinite in their character referring no
ihoriiy, and not defining clearly the view OF the
writer or speakerae too vague for authority III they
are underslood 10 mean that the French government
would consent 10 commissions to allow The claims on
condition that we would renew the former treaties, and