Eastern times. [volume] (Bath, Me.) 1846-1857, 1855-03-01

s.iS hSdeioe vi llIo 10 100 Win tne c0nStruC-
'lon which France had placed upon them, that
the latter government would, on the other
hand, have agreed TO make indemnity for those
spollatlons which we're committed under the
pretext that the United States were faithless
10 the obligations of the alliance between the
two countries.
Hence the conclusion that the United States
did not sacrifice private rights or property to
get rid OF public obligations for the purpose of
obtaining the recognition of the claims of
American citizens on the part of France.
All those claims which the French govern
ment was willing to admit were carefully pro-
vided for elsewhere in the convention, and the
declaration of the First Consul, which was ap-
pended in his additional note, had no other ap-
pllcaton than to the claims which had been
mutually made by the governments, but on
which they had never approximated to an ad-
Justment In confirmation of the fact that our
government did not intend to cease from the
prosecution of the just claims of our citizens
against France, reference is here made TO the
annual message of President Jefferson of De-
cember 8, 1901, which opens with expressions
of his qualification at the restoration of peace
among sister nations, and after speaking of
the assurance received.from all nations with
whom we have principal relations, and of the
confidence thus inspired that our peace with
them would not have been disturbed if they
had continued at war with each other, but he
proceeds to say:
But cessation of Irregularities which had
afflicted the commerce of neutral nations, and
of the irriiatlons and injuries produced by
them, cannot but add to this confidence, and
strengthen at the same time the hope that
wrongs committed on unoffeAding friends, un-
der pressure of circumstances, will now be
reviewed with candor, and will be considered
as founding just claims of retribution for the
past and new assurances for the future
The. zeal and diligence with which the
claims OF our citizens against France were
prosecuted appear in the diplomatic cores
pondence of the three years next succeeding
the convention of 1900, and the effect of these
efforts is made manifest in the convention of
1903, In which provision was made for pay
ment of a class of cases, the consideration of
which France had at all previous periods re-
fused to entertain, and which are OF that very
class which 1t has been often assumed were
realized by striking out the second article of
the convention of 1900. This is shown by ref
erence 10 the preamble, and TO the fourth and
NTH articles OF the convention of 1903, by
which were admitted among the debts due by
France to citizens of the United States the
amounts chargable for prizes made at sea in
which the appeal has been properly lodged
within the time mentioned in the said conven-
ton of the 30th OF September, 1900; = and this
class was further defined 10 BE- only captures
OF which the council Of prizes shall have. or
dered restitution, 1t being we'll understood that
the claimant cannot have recourse TO the Unit
ed States, otherwise than he might have had to
the French republic, and only IN case of the
lnsutiicency of the captors.'
If, as was affirmed on all hands, the conven-
ton OF 1903 was intended TO close all ques-
tons between the government of France and
the United States, and twenty millions of
francs were set apart as i sum which might
exceed, but could not fall short, of the debts
due by France TO the citizens OF the United
States, how are we 10 reconcile the claim
now presented with the estimates made by
those who were of The time and Immediately
connected with the events. and whose intell-
gence and integrity have in no small degree
contributed TO the character and prosperity of
the country in which we liyel Is il rational
to assume that the claimants who now present
themselves for indemnity by the United States,
represent debts which would have been admit
ted and paid by France hnt for the iniarveniion
of the U. States And is il possible to es-
cape from the effect of the volumninous evi-
dence tending TO establish the fact that France
resisted all these claims-that it was only af-
ter long and skilful negotiation that the agents
of the United States obtained the recognition
of such of the claims as were provided for in
the conventions of 1900 and 1903 And is
not this conclusive against any pretensions of
nIn Il
left unaided to make their applications to
France that the only debts due 10 American
citizens which have been paid by France are
those which were assumed by the United
States as part of the consideration i!Y the pur-
chase of louisiana
There is little which is creditable either to
the Judgment or patriotism of those of our fel-
low-cltlzens who at this day arraign the jus.
tlce, the fidelity, or love of country of the men
who founded the republic, in representing
them as having bartered away the property OF
individuals to escape frem public obligations,
and then 10 have withheld from them Just
compensation. 1t has been gratifying 10 me,
in tracing the history of these claims, to find
that ample evidence exists to refute an accusa-
ton which would impeach the purity, the jus
tice, and the magnanlmity of the illustrious
] lleu NnO gulueu dHu COnlTOlleu the early QeS-
TIMES of the republic.
| pass from this review of the history of the
subject, and, emitting many substantial obec-
tlons TO these claims, proceed to examine
somewhat more closely the only grounds upon
which they can possibly be maintained.
Before entering on this, it may be proper 70
state distinctly certain propositions which, il
is admitted on all hands, are essential to prove
the obligations Of the government.
First. That at the date of the treaty of Sep
tember 30, 1900, these claims were valid and
existing as against France.
Second. That they were released or extin-
I guished by the United States in that treaty,
and by the manner of its ratification.
Third. That they were so released or ex.
tlngushed for consideration valuable to the
| government. but in which the claimants had
ne more interest than any other citizens.
The convention between the French repnb.
lie and the United States of America. signed
at Paris on the Both of September, 1900, pur,
ports in the preamble TO be founded on the
equal desire Of the First Consul, (Napoleor
Bonaparte) and the President of the United
States to terminate the differences which have
arisen between the two States. 1t declares
IN the first place, that there shall be firm. in
violable and universal peace. and true aHe
sincere friendship, between the French repub
lie and the United States Next it proceed.
in the second, third, fourth and fifth articles
TO make provision in sundry respects, having
reference to past differences, and the transi