The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1855-02-03

ton Al .a,ai, war asserting their rights giving them
tho highest redress and Ang 70 secure on 'ne
Conclusion of peace they To be taxed again 70
make up all the losses Of these ciaimanY Neither justice
nor the Law OF nations requires II and no parallel can be
fua where any government the globe has under such
Unidentified the losses Of its citizens out Of
Its own exchequer, after making an unsuccessful war 70
enforce their rights.
/ proceed now Mr. Chairman 10 examine the grounds
upou hie these claimants mainly rely for indemnity II
war existed have shown the claims were exiting uished
The claimants deny that war existed between me TWO
nations insist that the treaty OF September 1900 ae
tuny released valuable consideration TO the United
States the claims Of citizens against France TINS
then there is merit in this bill he second aru
Gle OF the treaty aud subsequent rejection by the sen
ate 1t Is contended furnishes evidence that France ao
knowlrdged the liability aud It's rejection BY the Senate
abandoned the claims rid Of the obligations Of guar
anty contained in the treaty OF Ts The second or re-
jected article, is in the following words
The ministers penpotensiary Of the two powers not be-
ing able 70 agree a respecting .ae treat. o.
date, and the convention Of l4th November
l7ss the indemnities mutually due or claimed the
parties will negotiate further upon these subjects at eonse
and until they have agreed upon these points
the said treaties and convention shall have no
the relations Of the countries shall be regulated a. o
love-" &c.
This article was stricken out by Senate and the fol-
lowing provision was inserted;
agreed that the present convention shall be in force
for eight years the time Of the exchange Of
the Publications"
Does the article furnish the evidence claimed for if
it, On the contrary IL furnishes strong
liability and intended put itself in position where IT.
might through all time refuse further TO negotiate
When these four points OF difference TO be, not ad
justed or paid but negotiated upon2 AT -conteHie@
time Such language, in official paper, prepared ~
such Taieyrand mean nothing else than
perpetual Republication by France of all liability for these
spoliations and Mr.. Murray Of our commissioners
who exchanged the publications. fully corroboraes this con-
clusion lie says with reference to the rejected article;
sIfthe Senate meant, hope consider ademnit'ss
,corh nothing, the business, presume Is closed
raua tI,a sinh
rand who did his work awkwardly or unmeanngy
for his prince interpreted the true intent OF the second ar
ticle to be indefinite postponemen Of the four open
points aud when that article expunged he said it
renouccd susceptible of producing disquet IN future
BY promising nothing but Interior and dscordanf ngo-
haon When the article rejected IT true the fur
ther Of the claims renounced by gov
eminent for consideration but because France
tnsciousy and firmly refused TO acknowledge her liability
after had gone But what paragraph in the
ond article secured anything the camant2 The extent
of concession them is that convenient time, the two
governments will further negotiate upon the subject What
such a contingent recognition worth? Could not
France if the article had been retained without any viola
ton Of its provisions have said Ave ten twenty
afterwards that convenient time to negotiate had not
arrived When our commissioners consented this pro-
vision is it not apparent that it the nearest approach
recognition they could obtain, and that by reserving
for future consideration the subject they had followed
nearly possible their instructions demand ndemni
ties? Here demand but the response promis-
inga France delieately yet very emphatcaly said we
recognise these claims and the posponeent
courteous negaton Of liability The striking out Of
the article could strengthen the rights Of the claimants
beyond the recognition therein contained and ii there
no recognition, then rights released.
These claimants however, contend that the declaration
of Napoleon Bonaparte first consul attached the treaty
furnishes evidence that their claims released fora
sideratioi After the treaty had been ratified it
back France approve the amended treaty and Bona
pare returned il with declaration which certainly
part OF it, but his opinion OF the effect Of the action Of
the Senate striking out the second article in the following
words:
That by this retrenchment the States the
respective presnsons which the object Of said article
These the four adjourned points deferred
venent time Mr. Madison, the Secretary Of State says
am authorized say that President regard
the deciaasoEy clause ~ more than legitimate inference
from the rejection by the Senate Of the second article
And when the treaty again sent into the Senate,
without adopting this declaration of Bonapare they
solved that they consider the said as fully
ratified Is this to be the foundation of liabilityan
inference drawn from declaration of Bonaparte which
part of the treaty
But said that released the claims to relieve our
selves Of the alliance and under the treaties
IT'S The guarantees mutual reciprocal IL indeed,
the treaties considered of force and perceive
how they could be then sad be suhstng for France
in 1893 violated the by solemn decree the Uni
ted States 1913 declared them void The acts of the
governments bad in fact abrogaed the treaties and
if that be what consideration could be due from
relieve OF the If the treaties suhssng
in 1900, they mutually binding and obligatory and
the release Of France from her obligation protect
release of obligations guaranty her American pos
What consideration then there for us TO re-
ceive France for these claims None We abandoned
them because could not according international law
justly require their by France because went
war; and, II We did not to war; they were abandoned
after long negotiation open hostility and renewed nepo-
tiaon because France denied her liability and would not
pay In the latter justiabe and the citizen
has just of complaint Ii it had been clear that
France liable, even then had a perfect right TO
abandon the claims rather than plunge the country into
general and devastating to enforce them and the
United States such would be- eQuitably
morally bound to pay the claims Of the injured citizen
In every aspect Of this subject deny obligation 10
indemnity these claimants They prosecuted with
extraordinary diligence tried to enforce them by re-
prisa by war; pressed them subsequently, in nego
atons last abandoned thein but without consid
Grafton and because France persisted in refusing to pay
them
For ty-two years these claims have been successfully
and steadily repudiaed by predecessors; what new
lights have dawned upon justify large an expend
to much heavier appropriations for these same claims
stated the OF my remarks that these claims with
out interest, amounted 10 upwards of eleven millions OF
dollars. Can you pay such with five mlions2 II
eleven millions of dollars due and the liability of
government is established for any portion Won do In
this BILL bow you avoid paying the whole sum? Win
force citizen after acknowledging the Justice OF
his demand BY solemn Of Congress to receive only
forty in every dollar and give YOU receipt in full
When there odious reputation practsed bv
than this viii be? If the claims be lust
pay ALL plead in your making the appropriation
poverty or bankruptcy for the residue
Sir the prospect Of the speedy passage of this bill in the
House of Representatives gives pain When
IL shall go upon your a,n,ebook will be recorded re-
buke OF all the great and inelects who have gone
befnrc in halls