Lynchburg daily Virginian. [volume] (Lynchburg [Va.]) 1852-1861, 1855-02-24
LYNCHBURG IIRGINIAN.
SATURDAY MORNING. FEB'Y "a. 1855.
The Presidents Veto Message

the message prevents us from being able tt pre-
sent it to readers entire. but we shall give an
outline oft. in all its features, so as 10 compen.
safe them As far as possible. by the brevity of
our statement, for what they NAV have lost in the
absence of the ornaments TO the Presidents logic.
The message begins.by asserting in the broad
est terms, the right of the Executive. 10 put upon
Congress the necessity of two third vote TO
make any bill law, for which he, a member
of Congress. would not have voted. Apparently
considering that this formidable shape in
which to state the extent of his prorogatyes be
follows it by apology for the apparent" nvil.
iousness Of the doctrine. aud for consolation, re-
minds the members of the House. that each of
them, and Of the Senators. have. under the Com
stitution, "tae same night of approving dis
approving bill Yen, verify, and 50 have We
but how different the consequences, and those
ef the al forbid it, of His Excellenc,
Before proceeding 10 argue the question upon
the record, viz, whether these claimants really
have an equitable right to indemnity from tho
United States, the President INDUCES in little
ad captondEn, such may be listened to from
any lawyer on the bad side of u cese in jus
yice's Count.
Tie says il these CLAIMS due, they should
have been paid fifty years ago, aud that the bill.
therefore, implies eensure upon the public men
of that period that 1t confesses n national nius-
tice which is a stan npon the national honor,
and that he had greatly too high an opinion of
Messrs. Jefferson, Madison and Monroe. to sup
pose that ire, atihis day, can have amy more
light up.n the subject thm they bad, or my
higher scnse * moral or political responsibility.
II cayls at the bill FOR being final, and snys that
hecauseit provides, upon principle Analogous
10 statute of limitations, that this appropriation
shall be bar to all future demands it Is not. in
his judgement the way to atone for wrongs or
meet obligations.
At this point we are informed that the argu-
mfhtls about TO begin but it is preceded by
long prcfaec--in which is skctched the relation
between irauce aad the United States from 1850
10 JS00-uow, in the former year, treaties of
commerce ard alliance were made; aud how the
friendly relations betweentho countries were in
13fufteS by the injurious measures adopted by
the French Directory, in order 10 eounteract
those OF Great Britain; how all this led To mutu-
al rcprisals, and came near briging on deeIara-
tlon Of war, upon the exposure of the Y. \. Il.
affair. In the year 500 the first trcnty bearing
aPon the question was negotiated. h, the war
Ike demonstrations made from l793 toI7q7, he
thinks the Government discharged ts,lf of al
obligation which could spring from lis supposed
neglect to protect its citizens. The conclusion
l.. that any such obligation, if l. <uhsi, at nil,
must arise from some act Of the government.
We hold these principle to be andcniaho:
TINT Il the Government of the United States, in
fr.o Ia, e..
lean citizens are asserting claims, 10y the conycu-
fions into which it enters raises a bur to those
claims being afterwards successful, asscrted
against such power, the Government hus yirtv
ally taken private property for public u,,s Rs
relieving the debtor state of its obligations for
reasons of policy, il, in point of natural Justice,
assumes the debt, and comes within the spirit and
equity Of that provision ef the Constitution which
requires that compensation be made. The mes
sage implicitly admits this principle and Discus
ses the question of fact, whether these clnms
against the French Government have been barred
by the treaty stpuatons of 1900 and 1903 Tn.
on the decision of this question in the negative,
the President has put his defence.
We think he has failed to prove his case aud
that the failure is apparent upon the face of his
own argument.
Gle tells us that the treaty Of 1900 ms origin
silly submitted to the Senate for ratification, con
.anea i~o articles only material to the ques-
ton viz: tho 2nd aud 9TH. The former of these
recited that the ministers plenipotentiary were
unable "a agree upon the indemnities mutual,
due or claimed, and the consideration of them
was accordingly postponed to- convenient time
Meanwhile the treaty was 10 have. as 10 them no
effect at all
Art. End provided that the debt due fl ON the
one natias Ia individuals of the other. or from
individuals Of to individuals of the eth AZ
should be paid or prosecuted as if there had been
no misunderstanding between the states. "But
this clause shall not extend to indemnities claim
ed on account of captures or confiscations" In
our Senate the second clause, postpouing the
consideration Of the ndemnities was stricken
out-and there was inserted instead, provision
that the treaty should be in force for years
When Bonapartn received the treaty thus alter
ed, he added to the clause inserted BY the Senate
a note conscnting To the alteration NTH pro-
riso in these words Provided that br this re-
trenohment, tine two States renoapee the respec-
tive pretensons IT, e., TO mutual indemnitcs0
which are the object of the said article" The
treaty returned to the Senate with this note and
that body passed resolution that they consid
cred the treaty as fully ratified" The Presi.
dent labors to show that the proyiso, added by
Bonaparte which either swept away the right of
our citizens 10 assert ther claims against the
French Government, was sheer nonsense was
never understood as having any such effect
He labor hoe opus est This is the very ground