Daily American organ. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1856, 1855-02-24
NUMBER SO.
From the American and Gazette.
The SpOliation Claims.

to of the French Spoliation BILL The hope we en-
/ tertained that Congress would have sufficient
sense of justice and selfrespect to carry the mea.
sure, notwithstanding the Executive negative, has
been disappointed by the vote in the House of Rep
resentatyes. The claimants must submit to have
their rights postponed again, as they have been
repeatedly before; trusting, nevertheless, to the
intelligence, integrity, and patriotism of the
men who will be in the ascendant at Washington
short time hence, to grant them debt righte-
ously and clearly due by the government.
The message containing tha objections Of the
President to the BILL we did not publish because
il was very lengthy document very weak one
IN Its facts and reasoning, and consisted, subsan-
tally, indeed, OF the arguments of the late Silas
| Wright, OF New York; against the claims Nor
should we now bestow a remark upon it, were it
not that we desire TO call public attention to a
grave error into which the Executive has fallen re-
spectng an essential historical fact involved in tho
| issue. Mr. Pierce rests his opposition to the bill
mainly on the allegation that the United States
never did relinqush, for valuable consideration,
the claims Of its citizens against France for spoa-
tions of their property. The grounds on which he
bases this proposition are set forth and argued in
his message. We shall review them here but
briefly.
He contends in the first place, that the condi-
tons of the treaties of alliance and commerce.
| of ITS, and the consular convention of 1888
tacitly, but unequivocay, recognised as no longer
in force, by the new conditions Of amity and in
| tercourse, commercial and political embraced in
| the convention signed at Paris, September 3Oth.
1900 And yet, while seeming to assert that the
obligations of the preceding treaties, &c, had alb
solutely ceased by virtue Of some other precedent
cause causes prior to the ratification of the con-
vention OF 1900, the President in the very sem
tence in which he appears to make this declaration
says that the stipulatons Of the last named treaty
were "of course to be substituted in place of the
previous conditions Of the treaties Of alliance, and
of commerce, and the consular convention Does
not this involve palpable contradiction? Can
there be-a substitution of one thing, for another
thing that does not exist? /? IT. as Mr. Pierce ar
CUES, the conditions of the convention, &C., of
l78s, were "abrogated, either by the state of war
or by the political action of the two republics"
before the treaty of 1900 was concluded how can
the provisions Of the one be declared to have been
| substituted for those of the others Again, in a
| subsequent paragraph, the President says" Ex-
cept In so far as the whole convention (of 1900
goes to establish the fact that the previous treaties
were admitted on both sides to be at an end, none
of the articles are directly material to the present
question save the following" He then quotes the
I'd and 9th articles of the convention of 1900 The
former after stating that the Ministers Plenpoten-
tary of the two parties are not able to agree re-
specting " the indemnities now fully due or claim
Su ulutT pTeCeulHB ITSutlcS, &C, and that they
VIII negotiate further on these subjects at conve-
nent time, expressly provides that until they have
agreed upon these points, +" the said treaties and
convention shall have no operation &c. What
treaties and convention are here referred toY
Those, obviously, of l77s and 1888.
And if, according to the view of Mr.. Pierce,
they were already null and void, where was the ne
cessityy Of proceeding in subsequent treaty, to
wit that of 1900, for a suspension of their opera
ton? In the fifth article, mo's~t =, "neren pro.
vision is made for rne payment or prosecution OF
the debts contracted by one of the two nations
with individuals of the other or by the individuals
of one with those of the other, II is distinctly
stated that this clause shall not extend to indem-
mites claimed account of captures and contisca
tons Why make this exception in favor Of the
very claims of which settlement is now demanded
by our cizcns Of their government, If as IL is al
legged in the veto message the laws or rengagements
under which they accrued were not In force or
being at the date OF the convention OF 1900?
But the President goes on TO argue that whether
the claims now in dispute were valid and existent
or not at the period Of negotiating the convention
of 1900, that convention did not relinqush them
as against France. This is the passage in the Ex-
ecutiye argument upon this question, which, in
our Judgment is most remarkable for its hllacious-
ness and for the disreputabc reflection it mani
testify casts upon the integrity of the Congress Of
that day. The history OF the transaction Is as fol-
lows The convention Of 1900 being submitted
TO the United States Senate, they consented to and
recommended its ratification upon the insertion Of
proyiso expungng the second article thereof
and stipuating that 1t should be in force for the
term Of eight years from the time Of the exchange
of rntifcatons The convention, thus amended,
was submitted to the First Consul, (Napoleon) il
was ratified by him; he, however, accompanying
his act Of acceptance with the following dcclara-
tory note:
"The government Of the United States having
added in It's ratification that the convention should
be in force for the space OF eight years, and hav
ing omitted the second article, the government OF
the French republic consents to accept, ratify
and confirm the above convention, with the addition
importing that the convention shall be in force for
the space of eight years and with the rctrenchment
ofthe second article Provided that by this retrencb
nent the two States renouncc the respective
pretensions which the object Of the snid art
clen
The document thus ratified was then returned
and resubmtted to the Senate ofthe United States,
whereupon they resolved that "they considered
the convention as fully ratified" and sent IL back
to the President for PRONUNCIATION; and it was ac-
cordingy promulgated in the usual FORM by Presi-
dent Jefferson. On these facts, which we have
quoted almost literally from his own narrative Of
| them, the President ventures the strange asser-
| ton, that in simply resolving that they con-
sidered the convention fully ratified the Senate
did, in fact abstain from any express declaration OF
| dissent or assent to the construction put by the
| First Consul on the retrenchmcnt fthe second
article and that therefore, il any inference, be-
yond this could be drawn from their resolution, il
is that they regarded the proyiso annexed by the
First Consul to his declaration Of acceptance as for
eign TO the subject nugatory, or as without con-
sequence or effect that Notwithstanding this pro-
vso they considered the ratification as full that If
the new proviso made change in the previous
| import of the convention, then the ratification
was not full and that in considering it full rat-
Gcation, they in substance deny that tho proviso
did in any respect change the tenor Of the con-
vention.
| This may be thought very artful and specious
specimen Of sophistical reasoning and every man
of sense and candor must see that il is emnently
unsound, as wen as unworthy of the high source
| from whence it proceeds. We viii not pause now
to expose the weakness of the legc, and ialsty Of
the conclusions TO which II leads the President
Contenting ourselves with simply remarking that
the ratification Of n treaty without expressly dis