Eastern times. [volume] (Bath, Me.) 1846-1857, 1855-03-01


29ih of June, same wear, an act for the condem-
nation and sales Of French vessels captured by
authority of the aci of 2slh Of May preceding.
On The 9Th of July, same year, an act abroga-
ting the treaties aud the convention which had
been concluded between the United States and
France, and declaring that the same shall not
henceforth be regarded obligatory on the gov
eminent or citizens of the United States. On
the 9Th Of the same month an act was passed
which enlarged the limits of the hostilities then
existing by authorizing our public vessels Of
France wherever found upon the high seas, and
conferred power on the Presidsn. 10 issue COM
missions to private armed vessels TO engage in
like service.
These acts, though short of a declaration of
war, which would put all the citizens of each
country in hostility with those of the other,
were nevertheless actual war. partial in its ap-
plication, maritime in its character, but which
required the expenditure of much of our public
treasure, and much of the blood of our patriotic
citizens who, in vessels but little suited to the
purposes Of war, went forth to battle on the
high seas for the rights and security of their
felow-citlzens, and TO repel indignities offered
to the national honor.
1t is not, then, because of any failure to use
v,
to obtain reparatiou that liability for private
claims can have been incurred by the United
States; and if there is any pretence tor such
liability, 1t must flow from the action. not from
the neglect of the United States. The first
complaint on the part of France was against
the proclamation Of President Washington, of
April %, 1893. At that early period in the
war which involved Austria, Prussia, Sar-
dnia, the United Netherlands. and Great
Britain on the one part, and France on the
other, the great and wise man who was the
Chief Executive, as he was and had been the
guardian of our then infant republic, pro-
claimed that the duty and interest of the
United States require that they should, with
sincerity and good faith, adopt and pursue
conduct friendly and impartial towards the
beligerent powers This attitude ofneutral-
ity, it was pretended, was in disregard of the
obligations of alliance between the United
States and France. And this, together with
the often-renewed complaint that the stipua-
tions of the treaties of HIS had not been
observed and executed by the United States,
formed the pretext for the series of outrages
upon our government and lis citizens which
finally drove us to seek redress and safety BY
an appeal TO force. The treaties of ITS, so
long the subject of French complaints, are now
understood to be the foundation upon which
are laid these claims of indemnity from the
United States for spoliatons committed by the
French prior to 1900 The act of our gov
ernment which abrogated not only the treaties
of l11S, bat a lso the subsequ mt consular con-
vention of l719, has already been referred to,
and it NAV be well here to inquire what the
course of France was in relation thereto By
the DEGREES of 9th of May, 1898, 7th of July,
1896, and I'd of March. 1897, the stipulations
which were then and subsequently most i'm
poriant TO the United States were rendered
wholly imperative. The highly injurious ef-
fecis which these DEGREES are known to have
produced show how vital were the provisions
of treaty which they violated, and make mani
fest the incontrovertible right of the United
States 10 declare, as the consequence of these
acts of the other contracting party, the treaties
at an end.
The next step in this inquiry is, whether
the act declaring the treaties null and void
was ever repealed, or whether by any other
means the treaties were ever revived SO as to
be either the subject or the source Of national
obligation. The war which has been described
was terminated by the treaty of Paris of 1900,
and to that instrument il is necessary to turn
TO find how much of pre-existing obligations
between the Two governments outlived the
hostiliues in which they had been engaged.
By the I'd article of the treaty of 1900 it was
declared that the ministers plenipotentiary of
the two parties, not being able TO agree re-
specting the treaties of alliance, amity, and
commerce of IT'S, and the convention of IL
SO, nor upon the indemnities mutually, due or
claimed, the parties will negotiate further on
these subjects at convenient time, and until
they shall have agreed upon these points the
said treaties and convention shall have no
operation.
When the treaty was submitted TO the SEN
ate of the United States the second article
was disagreed to, and the treaty amended by
striking it out, and inserting provision that
the convention then made should continue in
force eight years from the date of ratification,
which convention thus amended was accepted
by the First Consul of France, with the addi-
tion of a note explanatory of his construction
of the convention, to the effect that by the re-
trenchment of the second article the two States
renounce the respective pretensions which
were the objects of the said article.
1t will be perceived By the language of the
second article, as originally framed by the ne
gotiaiions, that they had found themselves un-
able TO adjust the controversies on which years
/ OF QlpiOmdcy ana OF nOStlltleS naQ Deen eA-
pended and that they were at last compelled
TO postpone the discussion of these questions
to that most indefinite period, convenient
time' All, then, Of these subjects which was
revived by the convention was the right to re-
new, when it should be convenient to the par
ties, discussion which had already exhaust
ed negotiation, involved the two countries in
maritime war, and on which the parties had
approached no nearer to concurrence than
they were when controversy began.
! The obligations of the treaties Of I778, and
the convention of 1888, were mutual, and esti-
mated to be equal. But, however onerous they
may have been to the United States, they had
been abrogated, and were not revived by the
convention of 1900, but expressly spoken of as
suspended until an event which could only oc-
cur by the pleasure of the United States. 1t
seems clear, then, that the United States were
relieved of no obligation to France by the re-
trenchment of the second article of the con-
veniion and if thereby France was relieved
of any valid claims against her, the United
States received no consideration in return and
if private property was taken by theuU, S.
from theiL own citizens, it was not for public
use. But it is here proper TO inquire whether
the United States did relieve France from val
id claims against her on The part of citizens Of
the United States, and did thus deprive them
Of their property.
The complaints and counter complaints of
the two governments had been, that treaties