The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1855-02-01

might otherwise been Instrumental il obtaining saeh
indemnities"
Shall seek for any further consideration than Is to be
found in the fact that government having other OUT
standing differences with France arising of
treaty saplatons did for the purpose Of settling these
differences enter into convention by which they are-
nounced" the claims OF citizens That government
which owed to them protection and through which
they could call for Indemnity, made its abandonment OF
them condition IN new governmental arrangement
This Mr. Chairman is only the American view Of the
subject but i i equally that Of France In the
uon of the FIRST consul short period subsequent 70 the
convention referred 70 BY the gentleman from Ohio Mr.
DISNEY, he distinctly states
The suppression of this article pat end 70 the
privileges which France had by tho T7s
nued ne at cais which America might have made Tor in
p. So,
This Is d very important statement and establishes
]. That France asserted treaty privileges;
That bad past CLAIMS for injuries done in time n
pedes, aud
That suppression OF the second article exnguised
the claims Of both parties
This sir is the declaration Of of the high contract
ing parties made A time, and under circums,anees
which fFea ia faa all snspeon and In cf iseclf
20 all the objections which have been urged in this
hall When, then the gentleman insists that the renuno
alton by our government made without considera-
ton point him these facts oppose his assertion
the declaration OF Madison in 1904
The claims from which France released admit
ted BY France and the valuable consider
tion In correspondent release OF the United States from
certain claims on them"
understood The distinguished gentleman from Missouri
attached By France to The stpnlatons OF the treaty
and convention of 1873 and 1888 But in addition the
answer already given have full reutaton in the in
strucons Of 1897 TO Pinckney, Marslal and Gerry
quiring them 10 urge upon France the acceptance OF
substitute for the reciprocal guarantee z but il France
should insist the mutual guarantee then to aim Al
sone modification of it' After further suggestions the
instructions proceed;
"Specilc antage certainty and are
guarantee allows latitude the of Judgment and
! discretion.
On the part the United States instead Of troops or
shpsofwar it viii be convenient to stpulae for moderate
sum Of money Or quantity Of provisions at the option Of
any future defensive The Of money, its value
provisions ought not to exceed the of 5000
| during any such war Page 45s.
la 1902 Mr. Livingston writing to Talleyrand, says:
It viii be wcll recolected by the distinguished
tes who had the management Of the negotaton that the
payment for Illegal captures with damages and indemntes,
ties of I77s the other that they considered Of
eqasa rata and that they ony formed the subject Of the
4 second article
We come now to the argument that the treaties and the
convention with France expressly abrogated by the
Of l98 and that subsequent prizes and seizures under
the authority of the French government formed subject
for indemnity do not intend to repeat the argument
that this and kindred acts did not amount TO declaration
Of war, but only to partial hostility. | am willing to
leave ii the foundation upon which il already stands.
If it did produce this consequence then am at loss
10 know what application is made of the fact and how the
question mt issue is affected thereby
1t would seem to be clear proposition that one govern
cannot, by its act abrogate treaty Each par
ty has the right OF Judging OF alleged inracons At
the time we were charging want Of faith on the part of
\ ness Even state of actual does extinguish
treaty stpuatons intended to be perpetual They lie in
allegiance during the but soon 1t ceases they
rise up again in their original vgor and maintain their
binding efficacy until waived by the parties, in
consistent stpuauons are entered into The case was
thus by the French ministers the 26h August
/ 1900:
tWhen, the hand Congress declares that France
has conravened these treaties and that the United States
released from their stpnlaons and when, the other
the Of France declares that she has conormed
these treaties that she desires their execution and that the
United States alone have nrnged them where is the rbu
nal the law to enforce the exoneraon in preference to the
execution
he may please cancel his obligations, in virtue Of his
Judgment C ae or 9s Or things no binding
| be erased from every language
II would seem to be admitted that the act of I79s could
not produce any effect occurrences prior TO that
riod and those subsequent the act and prior
the date of the convention have been able dis
cover that has recognised any dis
tinction between them.
tice of the committee before close II evidently the
policy Of government to encourage merchantmen
keep the in face OF the depredatory OF France
and for this purpose the protection Of the
promised in the strongest and most encouraging form.
On the 27t of August 1893 Thomas Jefferson addressed
letter to the merchants of the United States in which il
| Is stated
Compant having been made of some instances OF unius
tifabe vexations and spoiaons committed merchant
vessels by the the being
possible that other instances have happened Of which
information has been given TO the government have IL 10
charge from the President the merchants of tie
United States concerned in foreign navigation
that due attention will be paid injuries they suffer
the high in foreign countries contrary the law
of nations existing treaties and that their forward
ing hther authenticated evidence of the proper
proceedings win be adopted for their relief Doc l02 p
2l7.
Now Mr.. Chairman, believe that have fully proved
from the documentary archives OF the State Department
from your statutes and from your treates That France
had prior 10 1900 committed large spoatons upon the
Of American citizens That this government
according the express agreement of Mr. Jefferson
men them That in 1900, for the purpose OF accom-
modating all the differences between tho two
Of which out Of treaty indemnities this gov
ernment entered into convention with France, BY which
these claims for spoatons abandoned and repqush
ed Is not this too plain for cav and does the
ment pronounce its Judgment And in what an
titude does il place as Having used the claims Of
citizens in governmental arrangements for purposes bene-
fetal to the whole people, refuse make them
reparaon shall stand in direct and papabc opposi-
ton that provision of the constitution which declares
that private property shal be taken for public use
without just compensation The oath which took as a
member Of Congress binds just compensation
/ 20 the claimants.
Unable 70 overthrow the argument upon which the bill
~ rested the effort E destroy by appeals 10 prejudice
Much placed upon the ~staenees OF the demand
IL is true that this Indebtedness is o long standing but
this Is the misfortune not the fault Of the claimants for
they have been steadily prosecuting their demand from the
having been baed by Congress for upwards Of FIFTY years
liza he