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

JITgIlTI1
senaia on this BIN Upon former OCCASION however,
incidentally remarked thar il was possible thai this case
might come under the treaty spulaons between me United
States and Great Britain made that suggestion because
Supposed II could show that independently Of the just
ice of the claim upon which the committee base, and upon
which alone base the right of these citizens 10 DC paid
there was, under treaty stipulation between this country
and Great Britain probable for believing that this GOV
eminent was bound pay and that had IN its possession
money placed there by Great Britain to pay 4 would take
away the unwingness which he exhibited the
part oil some 10 do justice these the grounds
relied upon by the committee Of the Senate ask the at
tenuen OF The Senate for few minaes While attempt
10 sustain ms principle, which formerly incidentally as
sumed
Mr. President, the result of the FIRST article of the eay
OF dhent as ultimately construed by the sbltrsent OF the
emperor OF Russia, viii state. do not intend TO read 1T
bat ask my friend 10 if do properly
The result was this that the Of Great Btan
stipulated TO pay for the private property captured any
time during the war, which might be possession Of
the Brush io,ees, and within the jurisdiction of the Uned
States the date Of the treaty Then five claiming
under thus treaty what would il have been obligatory upon
the claimants 10 show First that property aiken
away and that the poss Of the enemy
and within the jurisdiction Of The United States the date
of The treaty These claimants did prepare their cns
do they ask that they shall be paid upon the basis
Of that treaty They have not therefore, produced proof
for the purpose of esbs ing TACT, but IL can
show by historical facts within the kno wege of the Senate
not positively, bat that, according to all human ro,ab "
this property conceded TO have been aker the pos
session Of the FORCES of Great Britain and within the urs
dcon of the United States the date of the treaty. then
show case in which, nasmuch the money in the
treasury at least should whether the prn-
cple OF relief applicable real personal property and
think that without going infinitely into the discussion
Of such matters ysu NIGH b, afford to pay the claim
h oo 1 Se m Of AUGUST snd the C.vo
burnt the Oath Of that MONTH II after there
treat from this city that this tobacco taken away They
supposed have commenced their about the 25h
or 26h Of August 1914 Them the army which fought the
butte of Bladensbug, and, vandake burnt your Capitol
after their retreat from here proceeded this very point
Nottingham for the purpose Of embarking in their vessels
/
waters Of the Chesapeake, Pauxent and until they pro-
ceeded TO Baltimore General Ross, with the army
which had been victorious here TO Baltimore from the
Patuxen and all know that the battle of North Point
was fought on tho 18th Of September, 1914.
What further do we know historically in regard this
aasacopf Why, sir, that this same fleet, with the
army joined by reinorcements from Great Britain, pro-
ceeded from the waters OF the Chesapeake TO attack New
Orleans which the glorious victory OF the Sth of
January, 1915 The treaty Of Client signed the
Oath Of December, 1914 My friend said he had
election Of the last It very certain that right
| rectness
/ Mr. BAYARD. The senator is mistaken /; and, if /
have his permission, j will correct him.
| Mr. PRATT. Certainly.
Mr. BAYARD Great Britain, under the treaty OF Client,
stipulated 10 restore pay for such slaves other private
property Of the citizens the Uned States were remain
ing within territory be restored by her under the treaty
twas waters OF territory within their jurisdiction. So
far as Great Britain possession of these the
time of the ratification OF the treaty, she had right
carry off the property from there II she the pos
Of territory then to be restored she had right
carry off property from there The treaty ratified
until early in lSl5either in March April Of that year;
have heard alleged that, after month of
September 1874 the British had any possession Of any
territory the of the Pauxen Of the
the Patuxent that they had any force there.
Hence, they had property ,here and property taken
from there would within the Of tie treaty
Mr., PRATT, think stated The psncrple correctly.
/ will read from the decision OF tina Emperor Of RaSsa
Tha the United States Of America entitled Just
determination from Great Britain Tor all private property
carried away by the British forces aad she question
lily AL
RED away by the British forces from the places ard
tories of which the restitution stipulated by the treaty,
States entitled consider having been carried away
all such slaves other property may have been
ported from the aforementioned territories board Of the
British vessels within the waters of SAID territories and
which, for this reason have not been restored
have not time TO refer 10 the other portion Of the deos
Ion; but think have stated the principle correctly. But
wish bring the notice Of my honorable friend and Of
the Senate this fact that the negroes taken from the
OF the Paurent actually paid for under the treaty
i Tnat is known to my honorable friend.
i MIR. BAYARD / do not know 1t; but can easily ur-
defs,snd that il might be The British IN the pos
Of the lower part Of The Chesapeake and they might
have had negroes there the time Of the ratification Of The
treaty; and they would lie under obligation restore
them, because they occupying places which they
compelled to restore under The ueaIy believe they had
Kent Island in their possession aud The lover of
Chesapeake Ii they had negroes IN their vessels that
time, and claimant proved that his negroes board
he would he entitled 10 recover, because the which
their fleets occupied much within their possession
the land upon which their troops sood and therefore
waters places 70 be rssinTed under the treaty Of
Client Bot that OF course, did not apply
ritory not in their possession. .Ur
| Mr.. PRATT. They did pay, Gr negroes taken away
from this very poin-Notunghsm. The brtween
the British md American nogouatorr this con-
tended the par Of Great Britain that those negroes had
gone away voluntarily, and bf paid 6ur and
hence the necessity fer referring the the erbtra
men OF the Emperor Of Russia proceeding show
shai according the decision of The Emperor Of Ru-ss
wherever property which had been captured any tune
during the war was in the possession Of the British
date OF The treaty, was 10 be surfendcreJ pail foe
i Mr.. BAYARD. Will The honorsSie or allow me 20
read from the docisionS lie only Iei1 Part Of IL l
the other to show what nesr order that there may
be difference between He rad 80 much Oh The dis
applies favor ~ the United States. will read
the counter decision. The Emperor saysi
"fthetc should huve been any American slayes o. prop
OF the treaty q Client did spuaie the reiuon 10 the
United States the Unied States have q i'm 20 ndsmnif
cation for such slaves properly
Ths his decision; and in view Of that said thai IL
the restitution Of the waters ofthe Pauxen any
rtory those water stpustsd for ~ lie treaty
OF Ghen the properly carried nwsy from there a. there
the time the treaty ratified would within it,
terms.
/ Mr. PRATT think the honorable senator admitted. a
while ago that they had possession Of The mouth Of the
Chepspeakc at that iIme'
\ Mr.. BAYARD. | believe they had.
. Mr. PRATT. And therefore he thinks, though he does
not tnos the ,, that they nigh, have paid fot negroes
taken from Nottingham, snd other points the Paiuxent
river because the psuxen, being tributary OF the Chesa