Eastern times. [volume] (Bath, Me.) 1846-1857, 1855-02-15


money our government ought to pay to be re-
leased from obligations by which we were
no longer bound 1t has been well said that
in his proclamation, President Washington
decided against the whole class of claims for
the payment of which government has so
long been importuned. The very foundation
on which Mr. Webster bases these claims, as
against our government, Gen. Washington
said did not exist. Mr.. Bib, of Kentucky,
IN the debates in the Senate of '35, well re-
marked that she was opposed to going back
thirty-iour years to sit in judgment on the con-
stltuted authorities of that time. -
1t may be asked what our government has
ever done 10 secure from France the payment
OF these alleged claims. Mr.. Bibb's words
are to the point. "These claims" said he,
shave been urged from year to year, (preyious
to lSO0) with all the earnestness and zeal due
from the nation. But they went on from bad
to worse, till negotiations were vain. We
then assumed hostile position During the
year '98, more than twenty laws were passed
by Congress upon this very subiect-some for
raising lroops-some for providing arms and
munitions of war-some for fitting ont a naval
force, and so on. Was this neglecting the
claims of our citzensl We went as far as
the interests of the nation would permit We
prosecuted these claims to the very verge of
plunging into that dreadful war then desolat-
ing Europe! The government then issued its
proclamation of neutrality and non-inter-
course"
The truth is, our government did all that
could be done to secure a recognition and pay
ment of these claims from France except to
declare war, and such declaration would
have barred the claims forever. And who
will say that we should have gone to war for
such cause THAT the nation should be-
come involved to such an extent to secure a
debt for an individual Or who will say that
failure to collect bill creates liability and OBJ
legation on our part to pay it,
Having gone TO the last extremity save act
ual war, to secure from France the payment
of our citizens claims, all without avail, in
the year 1900, the two nations re-opened ne
gotiations for the settlement of differences
France made up long account of grievances
based upon President Washington neutrality
proclamation, and we urged in Offset the claims
ed in STIMULATING for redress for captured prop
erty not actually condemned for the payment
Of debts contracted for between either nation
and individuals Of the other, or between indl-
viduals ofthe two nations, the same as though
no misunderstanding had taken place, but this
provision was not to extend TO "indennuieS
claimed on account Of captures or conScations. F"
Says Silas Wright, 81 must not be understood
as admitting that all was not, by the effect of
this treaty, recovered from France, which she
ever recognized as due, or ever intended to
pay. On the contrary, my best impression is,
from what / have been able to learn Of the
claims, that the treaty of Louisiana lin 1909
provided for the payment of all the claims
which France ever admitted, or intended to
pay, or which there was the most remote hope
of recovering in any way whatever"
1t should be borne in mind that the alleged
claims of our citizens for French spoliations
previous to 1900, are based upon the violation
by France of the treaty of '7S-a treaty which
our own government could not carry out, and
which Washington declared not binding upon
US. Had there been nothing but the law OF
nations to regulate the matters in question, no
one of our citizens would ever have thought of
redress for captures, detentions or confsca-
tons. As we have said, the French made up
a large list Of claims against US, and we pre-
ferred the claims of our citizens against them,
and in the treaty Of 1900 there was a section
setting forth that "the ministers plenlpoten-
tary Of the two powers not being able 10 agree,
at present respecting the treaty Of alliance and
the treaty Of amity and commerce of 10, nor
upon the indemnites mutually due or claimed,
(these very claims of our citizens among the
rest) the parties tcW negotiate further upon these
subjects at some Convenient time" When this
treaty came before the American Senate, that
body struck out this provision, being the I'd
article of that treaty, and ratified it as thus
amended When the amended treaty was re-
turned to the French Republic, by which it
had previously been ratified, for its action up
on the Senate's amendment, Bonaparte, then
First Consul ,concurreG in the amendment with
the following proviso "PrOrided, That by
this retrenchment the two States renounce the
respective pretensions WHICH are the object Of
the said article" When the treaty was again
returned to the Senate for them TO act upon
/ Bonaparte's proviso, they, considering that nc
material alteration had been made, ''resolved
that they considered the said convention as
\ fully ratified" and returned the same to the
President for the usual proclamation.
Here, then, we have the whole considera
ton received by our government, for which i
is alleged we should pay some five million o
dollars from the treasury. If the I'd article
of the treaty 81 1900 had been ratified by Tho
Senate, no one would pretend that our govern
ment was bound TO pay the claims in question
That article agreed that this subject with 9th
ers should be further considered at conuenien
time" Whether this convenient time eve
would have come NAV well be questioned or