The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1854-04-18

and therefore remuneration for the personal property ough
g be made by tho Eossnmsn. ar u,sr S ,h h so%
the case and will state my reasons Tor thu difference
Before however going into the report Of the committee
must advert as briefly can, ground Of claim
which was thrown INTO The case by The honorable
from Maryland, nr PRATT when II was before the Sen
ate on former occasion That ground Of claim founded
the treaty of Client and subsequent conventions between
the United States and Great Britain reference to slaves
and other private property removed by Great Britain ae
the ratification Of the treaty.
My honorable friend from Maryland seemed suppose
from The remarks be that occasion, that there
moons stoncy my part on that ground which is to-
tally distinct from that taken by the commee) IN re-
ssng the claim for relief this case when voted N favor
of the bill for the relief of the sufferers by the spoaons
the French prior to 1901. will eadeavor TO show that
am not inconsistent in supporting that bill and opposing this
and TO show that the principles emitting The claimants 70 re
lief IN the former essentially distinct from any which
be assumed in asking for relief in this case under The
treaty of Client
In reference the French spoliaons shall not enter
INTO discussion Of the BILL but suppose the great prnci-
pie applicable 10 il 10 he this the government OF The United
Stats having claims against Frances founded on spoaton<
committed by the French government on American citizens
whilst America neutral power-those spoatlons ON
the part of the French being pressed by our
government creating valid claims upon the French gov
ernmen for this controversy the
French made counter claims naast the United
States which, be they good bad my Judgment does not
enter into the question But the government Of the United
States with view got rid Of these counter AIMS as con-
alteration for the release by France of her claims against the
United States did release all claims Of American citizens upon
the government Of France BY that act assumed the right
to control and for its benefit claims which undoub
eddy existed the part of American citizens against the
French government and bartcred them away for the
pose Of obaning release of the CLAIMS OF France upon
this government and became necessarily bound 70 com
pensate its citizens for the claims which 1t had SO
received value for in the treaty made between the two
governments. That was the principle on which voted
for the French spoatons bill But what are the facts as
regards ths case!
During the war Of 1914 Great Britain, through her army
and navy here committed wdelydestrucive depredations
upon the properly of American etzens Expectations which
tlon and and consdered by every man IN
this country who has paid uny attention TO this matter 10
be contrary every usage OF civilized warfare, and dis
to the nation which permitted such excuses to take
place the part Of her troops but yet heard that
under the laws of nations upon any principle OF the law
Of nations, individual claim could against foreign
government for of destruction private property done
When nations the general conduct
IF that is a question, undoubtedly, of humanity II al
nation ranks herself among the civilized powers ofh world
she will properly be subjected and reproach she
violates the usages Of civilized wafnre but that principle
los give any right claims on the part ofndi-
gidual citizens against the belgerent government No
claim could be raised, unless were founded upona con-
and then the claim would be unlawful because the cit
of country at with another have right 10
make contract with the foreign government except with
he consent of their own government submit therefore,
hat there could not DO claims Great Britain by ndl
vidua citizens Of this country under the law OF nations,
Arising Of the Of the British troops during the war
1872 though might be that the was carried on IN
ized peoples because the mode OF carrying on the war
necessarily in the discretion of the government Of
no begerent nation. The law of war is the law Of force
and though modern civilization has 10 some extent limited
he horrors Of has yet attempted to impose OBJ
igaton part Of the law Of nations upon either Of the
,egerent in favor of the citizens or subjects
II the other begeren naton arising out OF dcpedatoDs
lpon private properly, committed during by government
i authority in carrying II on.
There was, therefore, under The law of nalofs, when
he treaty of Client concluded, obligation resting
",
ability to individuals for depredatons committed by her
roops during the war; that she bound the prn-
ples recognised by the law of nations 10 rmunerae the
Individual citizens Of this government for acts of that kind
There such treaty-no such claim but in closing
he by the treaty of Ghent stipulation was made by
he government Of the United States for the benefit of s
,zens, which protected their rights to the utmost of its
power AMI duty. That stipulation was that public prop
srty well private including slaves, or other private
property, which remained in the territory of the United
in of Great Britain the ratification of
he treaty. should be restored by the of Great
Britain and if restored its value should be paid Under
hat stipulation question, which principally related 10 the
nryng off Of slaves between the United States and
Great Britain whether such property principally slaves as
board British vessels within The jurisdiction Of the
United States the ratification Of the treaty. and
off in those vessels afterwards though taken board
before The ratification within the terms of the treaty
md whether Great Britain bound to
the United States for il. | will refer 10 the different
treaties and show that am right in my po-
on here The treaty Of Client will be found page 2lS
Of the eighth volume Of the Sautes at Large IL is the first
articic uuuef winch 4ucsuoh
IAN territory places and possessions Whatsoever taken
by either party from the other during the which may
taken after the signing of this treaty excepting only the
Islands hereinafter menuonedlsome northern islands,
shall be restored without delay and without causing any
carrying away any OF the artillery other
public property originally captured m the said forts Places
which shall remain therein upon tho exchange Of the
Publications Of thus treaty, any slaves other private
property
Subsequently 20 this treaty 1873 another convention
concluded between the United States and Great Britain
which will be found page 24S Of the volume. la
the hrst article of that convention stipulated, after
citing the first article The treaty of Gbent that.
Where's under the aforesaid article, the United States
claim for their citizens and their private property the
restitution Of full compensation for, oil slaves who,
the date Of the exchange Of the rahcons Of the said treaty
in any territory Places possessions whatsoever
directed by the aaid treaty to be restored 10 the United
States bat then s, occupied by the British forces whether
such slaves the date aforesaid Shore board
any British vessels lying in waters within the territory
jurisdiction of the United States"
IL then reces the differences which had arisen and IL is
agreed to refer those differences to the arbitration Of
friendly power The power not designated in that
ycniion bur subsequently, the reference made The
Emperor Of R sia The decision made by him forth
clearly the ground OF dispute the ground of the decision and
the extent to which the United States have right under
the treaty Of Client from Great British for slaves
other private property will rosd that decision II Is
found page q Of ,he volume. IL is headed his
Imperial Msesty's award, and made April "a 1922
necessary for read the whole of the award.
II States FIRST the fact that Great Britain and the United
States had agreed fer the his arbitration and the,,
proceeds 10 state thar the had been discussed be.
The penpoensres Of the United States and Great
Britain, and then proceeds, as follows;