The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1855-02-04

On French spolianons delivered il the House of Repre-
seRtatives January a. 1853
The House being liz the Committee Of the Whole The
state u ihe Uaion
Nr DISNEY said
Ar EnAIRNAS: II Is not ry psrpose to nsict upon the
House any extended remarks In regard the pending bib
general feeling which Is manifested upon AL hands 70 pro-
gs with the business which is pressing upon in every
diree9n nom every quarter and upon almost every con-
ceiyAbss subct shall endeavor limit my remarks In
Te4ertnse % 'hg 70 very reasonable time
Here per. . 10 remark, that was for a long time,
deeply impregnAted with feeling Of prejudice against
these French spoiation claims; and il until was
indaced TO t down and make careful calm and deib-
examination Of the that these preudces
dssspa'ed bat compelled the result Of that in
vestaton aud examination into the conyicton that these
claims founded Justice and tba, The national honor
and every consideration Of Justice public and private de-
sds al The hands Of this the payment Of the
elslms OF these parties
This case cnn De stated in general terms in dozen
woraS There is innituds Of detail about ii there is
vast variety Of facts there Is any quantity Of opinions
in relation to the matter, and which II gone into would
demand most extended discussion, and most extended
argument But repeat the itselfthe anatomy Of
The oascan be stated in dozen wordsperhaps in less.
The whole s simply here: Certain spostions
committed upon the property Of American merchants by
the citizens OF France with the and sanction
Of that government Those sPoations constituted juss
ground for claims Of indemnity against the French gov
Ii considered by this government and il
admitted by the government Of France. Bat while
France made this admission, she claimed corresponding
Offset be allowed TO her upon other grounds and after
exhibition Of great diplomatic skin and ability both
sides the whole difficulty finally settled BY the United
States giving TO France specific discharge from all ahi
lily upon her part grant indemnity for tbese claims
while France for and in consideration Of that discharge
given upon her part made and executed like release for
The claims she professed to have had against the
ment of our country.
This is case and ii all there Of it, There
admitted claim the part Of the government Of the Uni
ted States against France, admitted By France This
Is not denied The claim WAS admitted BY France: and
yet for and in virtue Of consideration given by France
the United States undertook and did apply the proper
ty involved in these claims for the general benefit The
United States gave France receptin full OF
these claims for her release Of claims
Now under state of facts like these, what the OBJ
yious dictates OF right and justice Private property has
been taken in order accomplish public purpose and the
question arises the obligation Of the government TO
demny for the property taken and applied The prn-
cipe through all your statutes 1t lies al the bottom
Of all your organic laws In all compensation must
be made for private property taken for public Yet
with clear this one through the ingenuity 81
those who opposed IL all sorts OF conceivable argu
enis and hare been resortd 10 for the purpose
mystfyng il to compicate it. and prevent its being
derstood and defeat the application Of principle uni
versally recognised as just and right
The arguments have been produced and reproduced
in Infinite number Of forms, sometimes stronger
times weaker. Like the dishonest debtor who
evasion get clear of his creditor gentlemen opposing
this claim have resortei to all Of arguments and
arguments which entered into the heads Of those who
upon the stage OF action nj the time these claims
One gentleman says that the war DESTROYED all claims
Now sir France up any snch objection and /:
the plea good Fralss the only party in whose
mouth the plea would be- but she made such plea she
admitted the justice of the claims and her liability
demnfy. Looking the debates heretofore had upon
this subject find this objection--this postonthsi
destroyed these claims sisnuously presented
which ought TO prevent the passage Of all siar bills
II has been said that under international law, de-
stroys All existing preexisng claims Buteren admit
ting the general doctrine, the claims in this were
good and acknowledged be such by France after the
isence OF the alleged war; why they not good
1t Is no say that there war; No sir The
waiver BY France Of sach plea and hsr subsequent ad
mission Of her liability rendered these claims valid
admitting, have said the general doctrine to be true
The American diplomats who negotiated the convention
OF 1900 did not agree with the opinions which the gentle
man from Missouri had expressed They contended thai
the abrogaon OF the treaties did not nyaldse the claim
for indennes of the spoatons by the French
Their argument this point be found at page CAB Of
the volume lfwar bad actually commenced when il is
suggested there given STILL how could its rights
be extinguish the claim of America is the Ian
guage oi the American ministers
The gentleman from Missouri says that the constdera
ton Of release of guarantee which France
never asked TO fulfill that il oetting value
less thing against another Others have declared that
France could have paid the claims she had wished
do and that she would not have paid them If she bad
had the ability All these objections have been made But
how do these objections apply Look at the Citi
gems OF the Uniled States having been despoed Of their
property, the government demanded decentralization from
the government OF France n the of the proceed
ings France admitted the nsice of the claims but for
valuable consideration government receipt in
full aequtianee and discharge Of All demands This is the
case and all there is Of it,
have before volume containing nothing but the
diplomatic correspondence in relation to this matter.
have read it line by hne from beginning TO end and
might occupy the committee for hours with extracts 70
show the Of what have said find in the very
position assumed by the gentleman that Congress by its
acts had annued the existing treaties There ssss
upon both sides and subtety the negotiations upon the
subject The gentleman from Missouri will pardon me If
say him that he oVerooks important point n this
not alone The guarantee TO which he referred
for which France claimed satisfaction and indemnify II
that she claimed indemnity for that guarantee But
il has been asserted that the guarantee Of value and
that France demanded its execution How Is this
declaration sustained by the acts2 Ia the letter Of nsruc
ons issued by the Secretary Of State the American min
lister Paris under date Of July IS, lT97, This passage
eus Ii certainly shows that the United States did
understand that France had released the guarantee
considered il without value;
When Mr.. Genet sent the minister Of the French
repubc TO she Uaited States s situation embarrassed
and the Of its probeDsca In such cir
natural that France should turn her
the mutual guarantee aud accordingly il required in
Mr. Genet Instructions be essential clause n the
treaty which he was 70 propose, Se
Again:
Bur. this time France powerful BY her victories and
10 her iamphs less regard the reciprocal
substitute for the reciprocal guarantees may be
posed" Ae.
Again.
But France on the mutual guarantee win be
necessary 20 aim At some modification Of i.
Caa answer be more conclusive the allegations that
The guarantee valuee that France agreed 70 waive
ha
There another important provision of which shall
speak and 70 back in the consideration of events
Al the breaking uf the Preach revelation the govern
ment q the United found m relations with that
country spgi6ed and defined existing freAe0pe