The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1855-02-01
CITY OF WASHINGTON THURSDAY MORNING FEBRUARY 1855

negotiate further these subjects time"
When the convention presented the Senate OF the
United States this second article by them stricken
out and provision added thai "the present convention
shall be in force for the term of eight years from the time
OF the exchange Of rathcaons Upon the Of this
convention 10 France the French consul agreed the
rerenchmsn Of the second article and the modification
10 its duration but with proyiso to which would ask
the special attention Of the House,
" Provided, That by this resrenchnent THE TWO srArEs
hENouNoE THE RESPECTIVE Professions wBIoH ARE the
SUBJECT or THE ARTICLE"
This was the 3st July 1901 and the final ratihca-
tons took place letb December year Now IL can
not be denied that the claims citizens spoatons
included among those mdcmniies the adjustment Of
which was by the second article postponed to conve
nent time and therefore constituted part Of those r
tensions which, by the proyiso, ycaoaaced
To break the force OF this position il is conended that
the Senate agreed TO the prcviso but
that they disagreed to it but the contrary the
convention with the provso being again before them
the 18th December they resolved two-thrs concur
ring that they consider the convention fully ratified
and they returned II to the President for promugato who
proclaimed il in the usual form.
The gentleman has appealed to Mr.. Madson's declara-
,n and in ee extract he reed In stated by Mr.
that he did not attach much Importance the provso for
the legal inference of the treaty ratified without the pro-
yiso, the provso declared il that is when the
Senate struck out the second article which provided for
adjustment il was equivalent to abandonment of all
mutual liabilities We might stand therefore upon the
legal inference stated by Mr. Madison the witness
moned by the gentleman
Mr.. ORR Legitimate inference
Mr., PHILLIPS. Well sir; legitimate infsysnce What
that but legal Inference the very origin of the word
ksx gis shows IL to be such inference the law would
make And is il upon such argument this the plain
and emphatic terms of this provso be annued and
the be permitted to set up that they
renounced the claims Of our citizens?
My friend laid some stress upon the expression in the
second article that the parties TO negotiate further
these subjects at convenient time But would ask
in the of humanity in the Of justice when will
be convenient time if not now after the lapse of
than half century, When will il be conve-
nent tmep if not now in the midst of peace abundant
prosperity, and an oyerfowing treasury?
But sir let us pass We have demonstrated that
citizens had just claims pretensons against the French
that those claims pretension of such
character to have been made the foundation of
abrogatng treaties with that government that they
formed the instructions to minister in 1890, which
far to direct "tha the recognition of these
claims should be enforced indispensable condition Of
the treaty that the second article of the treaty Of
did provide that these questions should be adjusted at
convenient time y that this second article of the treaty
stricken out by the Senate of the United States
ratification and provso added that the convention should
exist but for eight years that these amendments
concurred in by the French government with the express
stipulation that this retrenchment of the second article
to be considered as mutual abandonment by the two
governments of their mutual claims After all this, it
be still insisted that government is at liberty main
tain that citizens had claims against the French
government and that therefore, treaty forfeited none
The question remains Were these claims preen-
sons valuable? In answering will refer to anthor-
ties of secondary subordinate character shall
rely upon any but documentary evidence derived from the
highest official sourcesrom who lived the date of
these transactions fully acquainted with their history and
having authority to speak
Timothy Pickering Secretary of State in ls0o) says
If the relinqushment (of these clams) had not been
made the present French government S24 would be
eminent having been made in that the French
renqushed its demand for renewal Of the old
he mrean property 6uy of those old treaties ts sums
IS is2a a''''s" ''~' 's"''''s' As"s' ~" '''s''
Robert Livingston, minister to France April 81 1903
q The payment for illegal captures with damages
IDENTITIES was demanded on os side and the renewal Of the
.o and thew oniy formed thy subect Of the second
cie."--Doc. l02, p. III.
John Marshall Zone of the ministers) says.
would positively oppose any admission of the claims of
any French czen ii not accompanied with the admission of
the OF American citizens for property captured and
condemned for want Of role dequpage My for
cevng that this ought to be stipulated expressly
vcon that If it referred to commissioners it would be
committing absolutely to chance complete right any
indiridsai ever possessed Journal, p. All, No. BIG.
Now, sir the gentleman from South Carolina has
terrcd to Mr. Madison in support Of his opposition let
see how far such reference is justifable
James Madison, then Secretary of Sate) February g.
1904 says: The claims from which France released
we're admitted On Fance and the release as for a paa
in correspondent release of the United States
from certain claims on them Doe. l02, p. 7s5.
The opposition is welcome to all the aid and comfort il
derive from Mr.. Madison We have thus presented the
clear ayowas of of Secretaries of State and of
two OF our commissioners made time when the cir
of the treaty fresh in the minds OF ALL
and who parties concerned in ts formation and ra
fcaton
Nor The value of these claims prctensions alone
admitted by governments they also regarded
by France is in the celebrated proviso to which
have already referred and by other evidence to which
will presently advert
NY friend from South Carolina in his very earnest
speech stated that members should beware of the
used in the presentation of this subject by parties
interested in many they unreliable and de-
cepve and In proof Of this he referred to the report made
by Mr. Giles which he described not favorng these
claims it had been generally represented differ with
the gentleman to his construction Of that report II is
that 1t submits the question whether the government
bound TO indemnify the memorialiss but the facts
stated in the report the order in which they arranged
and the by which they connected all speak
the favorable conclusion which the committee had
rived clearly and inevitably though express terms Of
appreciation had been used
Mr. ORR Read what Mr. Giles says,
Mr. PHILLIPS Ny limited time viii not permit me to
read extensively from the report but win read short
from it Now, sir the great question between
is whether government used these claims for spoa
on in its treaty and did by the terms of that treaty,
lease the rights of our citizens
Mr. ORR win reply to the gentlenan's question il he
will permit me.
Mr. PHILLIPS As my time has so nearly run out I
the opening Of his speech that he would to
interruption
ICries of That's rightrJ
Mr.. ORR. Only moment The question laid down by
the gentleman is the point in controversy The point
h did the OF the United States surrender these
claims for consideration That is what the gentleman
from Alabama alleges that Is what deny.
Mr.. PHILLIPS Very WELL did not state the PROPOSE
ton effect differently from the assertion by
the gentleman He would now TO admit that the