Washington sentinel., 1855-02-20

OF his construction of the convention 10 the effect
that by the retrenchmeni OF the second article the
Two states renounce the respective pretensions
which were the object Of the said article.
Il will be perceived by the language OF the
second article, as originally framed by the nego-
tiators, that they had found themselves unable 10
adjust the controversies on which years OF dpio-
macy and Of hostilities had been expended and
that they were at last compelled 10 post pone the
discussion OF those questions TO that most indef-
mite period, convenient tme.n ALL then, of
these subjects which was revived by the conven-
lion was the right 10 renew, when il should be
convenient 10 the parties discussion which had
already exhausted negotiation, involved the two
countries in maritime war, and on which the
parties had approached no nearer TO concurrence
than they were when the controversy began.
The obligations of the treaties Of 177S and the
convention of l7oS, were mutual, and estimated
TO be equal. But, however onerous they may
have been 10 the United States; they had been abb
rogated and were not revived by the convention
OF $500, but expressly spoken of as suspended
until an event which could only occur by the
pleasure of the United States. Il seems Gear,
then, that the United States were relieved of no
obligation 10 France by the retrenchment of the
second article of the conventions and il thereby
France was relieved of any valid claims against
her, the United States received no consideration
in return, and that if private property was tas en-
by the United States from their own citizens il
was MOI lOT puOllC use but IL Is mere proper TO
inquire whether the United States did relieve
France from valid claims against her on the part
OF citizens of the United States and did thus de-
prve them Of their property.
The complaints and countercomplants Of the
two governments had been that treaties were
violated and tha, both public and individual rights
and interest had been sacrificed The correspon-
dence OF our ministers engaged in negotiations,
both before and after the convention Of 1900,
sufficiently proves how hopeless was the effort to
obtain full indemnify from France for injuries in
fhcted on our commerce from 1893 10 1900 unless
il should be by an account in which the rival pre-
tensions Of The two governments should each be
acknowledged, and the balance struck between
them.
tits supposable, and may be inferred from The
contemporaneous history as probable, that had the
United States agreed in 1900 10 revive the treaties
Of a7S and l7oS with the construction which
France had placed upon them, that the latter gov
ernment would, on the oiher hand, have agreed TO
make Indemnify for those spoliations which were
committed under the pretext that the United
States were faihess TO The obligations of the al
| aDce between the two countries
Hence The conclusion that the United States did
not sacrifice private rights properly to get rid
OF pubic obligations but only refused 10 reas ume
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 government
was willing 10 admit were carefully provided for
elsewhere in the convention, and the declaration
dltinna note, had no other application than TO the
Of the First Consul, which was appended in hi, ad-
claims which had been mutually made by the gov
ernments but on which they had never approx
mnied 10 an adjustment. In confirmation Of the
fact that our government did not intend 10 cease
from the prosecution Of the Just claims Of our
citizens against France, reference is here made 10
the annual message Of President Jefferson OF De-
cember 5, 1901, which opens with expressions of
his gralfcation al the restoration Of peace among
sister nations and after speaking Of the assurances
received from all nations with whom we had prin-
cpal relations, and of the confidence thus nspir-
ed that our peace with them would not have been
disturbed If they had continued at war with each
other he proceeds 10 say:
But cessation of irregularities which had az.
hicted the commerce of neutral nations, and Of
The lrritations and injuries produced by them
cannot but add 10 this confidence and strengthen
at the same time the hope that wrongs committed
on unolending friends, under a pre- sure Of cir
cumstances, will now be reviewed with candor
and will be considered 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 ap-
pear IN the diplomatic correspondence Of the three
years next succeeding the convention of lS00
and the effect of these efforts is made manifest in
made for payment OF a class Of cases, the consid-
Grafton OF which France had al all previous Pc
RODS refused TO entertain, and which Of that
very class which il has been often assumed were
released by striking out the second article of
the convention Of $500. This is shown by refer
ence TO the preamble, and to the fourth and fifth
articles of the convention of 1903, by which were
admitted among the debts due by France 10 cit-
zens Of the United States the amounts chargeable
for prizes made al sea in which the appeal has
been properly lodged within the time mentioned
in the said convention OF the Both OF September,
| lS00.' and this class further defined TO be
only car lures of which the council Of prizes shall
have ordered restitution, ii being well understood
| that the claimant cannot have recourse 10 the
| United States, otherwise than he might have had
TO the French republic, and only in case of the in.
| suflicency OF the captors.n
IL as was affirmed on all hands, the convention
| of 1903 was intended TO close all questions be.
| tween the government OF France and the United
States, and twenty millions OF francs were set
apart a sum which might exceed, but could not
fall short OF the debts due by France 10 the citi
zens OF the United States how are we 10 recon.
| cile the claim now presented with the estimates
made by those who were of the time and imme-
dately connected with the events, and whose in.
| teigence and integrity have in no small degree
contributed 10 the character and prosperity OF the
country in which we live! Is il rational TO assume
that the claimants, who now present themselves
| for indemnify by the United States, represent
| debts which would have been admitted and paid
by France but for the intervention OF the United
States? And is il possible 10 escape from the
effect Of the volumnous evidence tending 10 estab-
i.h the fact that France resisted all these claims
that il was only after long and skilful negota.
ton that the agents Of the United States obtained
the recognition OF such ofthe claims as were pro.
| vided for in the conventions Of 1900 and lS037
And is not this conclusive against any pretensions
OF possible success the part OF the clsimants if
len unaided 10 make their applications 10 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 Inc
| consideration IN the purchase Of Louisiana?
There 10 little which is credItable either 10 the
judgment or patriotism OF tho.e OF our fellow.
citizens wbo'nt this day arraign the Justice, the
fidelity, or love Of country Of the " ho founded
the republic, in representing them as having bar
tered away the property Of individuals 10 escape
from public obligations, and then TO have with.
beld from them just compensation. II has been
gratifying 10 me, in tracing the history OF these
claims, 10 find that ample evidence exists 10 re.
fute an accusation which would impeach the pu
ry, the Justice and the magma niitv Of the ilius-
trious men who guided and controlled the early
destnes Of the republic.
pass from this review ofthe history Of the sub.
ject. and emitting many substantial objections 10
these claims, proceed 10 examine .omew hat more