Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1855-02-22

4 Is ItnIItA WI kAO uhlDN u NHN ~ N''f L..
measure. Of invoking u second, and a more driocra'c
and solemn consideration of il vu the part "t t"ngr'ss'
1t is not incumbent Oh the President L" slsiia oi ~ "
matter OF course. and thus merely 10 "t'hr!i"'n;c III
action OF Congress, for he must exercise ii'c'i'S.h'
Judgment. or be taithlcss to the trust repos'a III h'ul'
If lie approve n till he shall sign it; but u i"'' NJ
shall return it, with his objections, 10 MAJ nous, ="
which it shall have originated, for such further action
rs The constitution demands, which Is iis cnac'ms'.' u
al all, not by Il bare numerical majority ms IN inc mrs.
instance, but by unconstitutional majority oil t"o'h"us
OF both houses. ;Jo
Willie the constitution thus c%onfrrs on tn" ieglsian,
tive bodies the complete power ni lre'Si"''"' ="
cases, il proceeds, in the spirit of justice, ~ PImn.'
for the protection of thc responsibility Of me ltc,a,
dent. It does not compel him TO mink INC slSn"'"re
Of approval to any bib unless 1t ns,uan! ~ e T ha "pp.
probation, for, while it requires hun 10 sign -, neap.
nroye. il in NV Judgment, imposes upon MN mo u",,
IF w;,bholdinr hi, signature if he do not approve, III
,ho cIocntion If his official duty in this respect, he Is
not TO perform a mere ninchan,cni par'!ou' 10 :" ~
n;do ord mel according to conscientious convictions OF
tLo righ,fnlness or the wrougfnlncss Of tn" proposed
Inv. In n matter rs to which he is doubtful II! MS
own mind, he may well defer to the majority oil !he
two houses. Individual members OF the reSpec,'E
| housps, owing to the nature, Tarlety, anu aniouii' va
business pending, must necessarily rely, for their
Guidance in many, perhaps most cases, when inc
matters involved are not of popular interes', uP"n im'
investigation Inappropriate committees, or ma n,
that of a single member, whose attention mas pee"
particularly directed 10 the subject. For similar reH.
sons, but even to r great extent, from the nuh!De'
and variety o~fsubjects daily urged upon me al!cnuu.'
tho President naturally relies much upon tneh'.s. 81,
CATION had, and the results arrived al, oy inc wv
houses, and hence those results, in large classes oi
eases, constitute tho bnsis upon when ms aPPIor"'
rests. The Presidents rospuDsloilty IA 10 tHe ~ 40
people of the United States as that OF Il senator ~ ~
the prople of a particular State, that OF q Representa-
,;w, 10 The people of q State or district; and 1t ma! DC
spfrly assumed that he will not resort 10 inc cic"It.
! defined and limited power OF arres'ing legisiat.on, ""u
ca!ling for reconsideration OF any measure sAu.P'n'
= -. A. rn~p ~ ut INV w ngI,
/, entertuius a decisive and fixed conclusion moi
merely of the uuconstitutionality, but OF inc iiipFo-
prietv, or injustice i'll other reptcts, OF any measure
If he declare that he approves II, lie Is faisc 10 MS oa'n'
and he deliberately disreg"rds Ills c"'S'''''''nsi 'oH-
cations. ,.h;o,
attaches 10 the action of Il majority OF the two houses.
But in this case. as in some DINERS, the trainers vi ouF
constitution, for wise considerations OF public good,
nroyidrd that nothing less than q two-thlrds vote OF
ouo or both Of the houses OF Congress shnl become
effective to bind the coordinate departments OF the
government, the people, and the several States. IL
there be ANYTHING of seeming righteousness i'll the ofii'
cia, rirht thus conferred on the President, il is in APP
pcarance only, for the SAINT right OF approving or dis
approving & bill, according TO each ones own ludg-
meut, is conferred on every member OF the ocna'c
and Of the House OF Representatives.
1t is apparent, therefore, that the circumstances
must be extraordinary which would induce Inc fresi-
dent 10 withhold approval FROM a bill lnvoFlHE ho o
violation OF the constitution. Iic anloum W a
| claims DrOpOscU 10 ~ - ~ H.
me, the nature OF the transactions IN snIm .to .;
claims ure ALLEGED 10 have originnteu; III. I.ns""" ~ =
,ime during which they have occupied ~ "'..Havno ~
Congress and the country, preSch, sun ~ T DE-. ;
TIL ;r bis,orv r, ndcrs il Impossible tnat u fresldent
~. ~ - nsyt;cipated ~ any considerable degree III
nublic affairs could have failed to form, respecting
Them, a decided opinion, upon what ne would deem
sot;.ractory grounds. Nevertheless. instead ofresting
on former opinions, it has seemed to me proper TO re-
y;ew and more carefully examine the whole subject,
so as satisfactorily to determine the nature and ex.
tent &c INV obligations in the premises.
I feci called upon, ut the threshold, to notice nn as
ser,;on oneo reueatcd, that the refusal Of the United
States to satisfy these claims. in the manner provided
BY the present bill, rests as stain on the justice OF
DIR country. If it be 40. the imputatlen on Inc pup
lie honor is aggravated by the consideration that the
claims prc coeval with the present century, and 1t has
been n persistent wrong during that wh".r period Of
time. The allegation If, that private properly mas
been taken for public use without Just compensation
in violation Of express provision OF the constitutions;
and that repnra,ion has been withheld, and justice de-
MED. until the injured parties nave for the most part
descended TO the grave But 1t Ia not TO be forgotten
or overlooked, that thoac who represented tina people,
in different capacities, at the time WHOM the alleged
obligations were incurred, and to whom the charge OF
injustice attaches, in the frot instance, have also pass
ed away, and borne with them the specini illlorina-
ton which controlled their decision, and, It may be
we'll presumed, constituted Inc Justhcauoh " ''RH
acts. r
Ii, however, the charge in qnestion be well founded,
although IL admission would lnscribe on our history
a pnge which We might desire most Of all to obiItefatc'
and, although, il true, il muet painfully disturb our
confidence in The Justice and the high sense ut moral
and political responsibility Of those whose memories
we have been taught 10 cherish with 80 much rever-
ence and respect, stil, ne iIare only one course "i ac-
tion left 20 us, and that il. I" maze the most prompt
and ample rcparntion il our power, hll! conslSn IN"
wrong. o. far ~ nay b., to forgctiulness.
But no -nch heavy sentence OF condemnation
should be lightly passed upon the saSacious ana pa
trintic men who participated IN the transactions QUITO,
which these claims are supposed to haze arisen. ana
who, from their ample means OF kn"~ieIEc o. me
general subject in its mlnufest details, ana rom N'eir
Official position, are peculiarly Responsible tor what
ever there is of wrong "r INJUSTICE in the decisions OF
the government.
the objection 10 the present hill-naIne!y' the absence
Of anv Indebtedness on toe part Of the lnited States.
The charge oi q denial OF iudt.ca IN this case, ara n
CONSEQUENT stain upon our national character, mas
not been endorsed by the American pe"T:", But, II
il were otherwise, this bill, So lar from relieving 'Ae
INST, would only stamp un the present n more deep
aud indelible stigma. 1t admits the justice OF the
claims, comedies that payment has been ~ionSiuiy
| withheld for fifty years, and then proposes nor 10 pay
| them, but to compound with inc phDIin creui'ors ny
uroyidinc, that whether the claims shall hc presented
or not, Whether the sum appropriated shall pny muc.
or little OF what shall be found due, the law itseli
shall constitute Il perpetual bar to all future demands
This il not, in my judgment, the way to atone Tor
wrongR, II they exist, nor 10 meet s"pslSllhS op"S"-
tions.
II new facts, not known or not accessible during the
| administration of Mr.. Jefferson, Mr.. Madison or MIR.
] Monroe, had since been brought to light. or new
aourc,s of information discovered. this would grehtly
relieve the subject Of embarrassment. But nothing
of this nature has occurred.
That those eminent statcsman had the best means
of arriving ut n correct cOpcluslGn. no one VIII deny.
Tint they never recognised the alleged obligation on
the part OF the government is shown by ihe history
| of their respective administrations. Indeed, II stands
| not as n matter Of controlling authority, but az Il tact
ofhistory, that these claims have never since our eAls-
tence as a milton been deemed BY any President "or'
thy of recommendation to Congress,
Claims to payment can rest only on tHe plea OF IN
debtcdncss on the part of the government. This re-
quircs that it biioWid be shown that the United States
have incurred liability TO ihec!nimants, either Gysuch
acts M deprive them Of their property, or by having
actually tax Ell it for public use, without making just
compensation for II.
The first branch Of the proposition-that on which
an equitable CHIN To be Unidentified by the u. States
for losses sustained might rest-requircs at least acur-
sory examination Of the history of the transactions on
which the claims depend. The first link which, i'll
| The chain of events, arrests attention, is the treaties Of
alliance and Of amity and commerce between the L.
States and France. negotiated in lTS. BY those
treaties, peculiar privileges were secured to the armed
vessels ui each Of the contracting parties in the ports
OF the other: the freedom of trade was greatly en-
larged; and mutual obligations were incurred by cach
to guaranty To the other their teiri'orlAi Pohseeeions W
America.
I'm 1923, when war broke out between France
and Great Britain, the former claimed privileges ia
American ports which our government did not admit
as dcduciblc from the treaties Of l77s, and which II
was held were in conflict with obligations to the other
bellirerent powers. The liberal principle OF one OF
the treaties referred to-tha; free ships mako free
gonds, and that subsistence and supplies were not con-
trabuxd of war, unless destined to a blockaded port
was found, in q commercial view, to operate disad-
vanta.eously to France, rs compared with her enc'
my. Great Britain, the Latter asserting, under the Ia"
of nations, the right I" capture. as eontraband, sup
plies when bound i"r nh rnealy's port.
Induced mainly, it is believed, by these c%onsidera-
tiuns, the government of France dccrced, on The 9TH
of MAY, 1893, the first year of the war, that "iht
French people are no longer permitted to fulfil to-
wards the neutral pewcrs in general The vows they