The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1857-12-26

The Claima Of the French GoveInment-Secre-
tasy Marcy's Reply 60 Count de Sartiges.
of tkANCk IN Tux UNITED STATEs,
WASHINGTON, Jan. l3, 1857.


IEGAuo. or FRANCE UNITED STATES,
WASHINGTON, Jan 49, 1857. !
SR'-Sundry French subjects, residents OF Greytown,
in the prosecution Of trade damaged in Their pro-
perty by the act the 18th Of May 1854 of the Game,
of the federal navy against that town. in consequence Of
difference which had arisen between the government Of
the United States and the local authorities Of the place
Unconnected with the which brought about that
act they still abstain from raising the question CT its
pedieney and are satisfied, through my mediation and
with the approval of the Emperors government to apply
to the Of the United States and solicit from It's
Of equity indemnity for the losses inflicted upon
them by the act Of the Cyane which they could not avoid
that vessel having appeared at Greyown on tne lh
laid down its ultimatum the 18th, and destroyed the
town on the 18th OF the month. was therefore phys
cally impossible for the foreign traders TO protect tue
goods which they held in dwellings or stores from the
bombardment and confagration OF the town.
My reasons for not producing the vouchers with
which the French merchants Of Grey had backed the
committed to must be earnest to you OF the
taken by the government OF the Emperor that the
amount of those claims shall be strictly confined TO the
losses actually sustained After these documents had
been sent to me transmitted them 10 the govern.
mept Of the Emperor and upon his order to that effect
the steamer Acheron was despatched to Greyto~n with
directions 10 the commander to institute inquiry into
the nature and the amount Of the losses incurred the
18th May by the French subjects This Investigation was
made on the spot and on data supplied at Once by the
parties complainant, by the other resien Of the town.
and by the foreign consus cannot therefore, for the
present submit TO you, sir the documents which vouch
which now in the hands of the Minister OF Foreign
Affairs. conhne myself to asking with them and
ment Of the United states shall recognise
their right to an indemnity its part
for the losses which they have borne through the act OF
vessel OF the federal navy, remarlipg at the time
that the ground Of an indemnity being admitted in
vesgat ions which have been respectively made by the
consuls Of the United States and the other consus and
by the commander of the Acheron will supply adequate
basis for au &C crate estimate OF the carnage to be
paired
uof ,ciptn fa.. a.
twofod light OF petition and reclamation as DO not
consider myself At liberty TO utter opinion TO the
fact brought about by difference originating between
sovereign States Neither do it necessary to
vindcaie the universally admitted right OF ueutTals
posed TO acts Of war to be respected BY begeents
pee ally before YOU sir who in your note q Tire 2Sh Of
July, with which you honored me, and winch IL France
we'll the United States was received with most Sc
rous consideration have written these words;-sit is
generally received rule OF modern warfare FAR al least
operations upon land concerned that the persons
and effects Of noncomba,ants are to be respected Nov
the property o, non conbaans enemy entitled to pro
lection, fortioa must il be SO with the property Of
foreigners the subjects of friendly power residing for
the purposes of trade, in town the destruction Of which
may be said to have preceded its siege
Accept the assurances OF my deep cons ration
WM. l., MARCY, Secretary of State. SARTIGES.
MARCY's REPLY TO COUNT sARTiGEs.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
WAsuisGTos, Feb. 20. 1857.
The Undersigned Secretary OF State OF the United states
has laid before the President the petition reclamation
Of persons styling themselves French subjects residential
Greyown presented through the medium OF the Count dc
Sarges the Envoy Extraordinary and Minister po;en
tary OF the Emperor of the French, by the approval Of
bis government
Upon full consideration of the subject embraced in the
note OF the Count de Sarges the President has uo been
able 10 find any ground Of right equity upon
which such a reclamation can be sustained
The cs es for which indemnity sought resulted from
the bombardmeni OF Greytown on the 18th q May 1851
by the United States soop Of Cyane The appeal is
not made in the name OF the French government yet by
its approval the French Minister has presented the to
the notice Ct this government GA this account
ceved the most respectful consideration but such con
sideraiion would not be given to If without bringing into
view questions Of international Law which only be APP
propriaey discussed on direct issue between ndepen
dent Powers
The claim to indemnity in this not placed distinct.
" the ground ef right is the justice proprcty
Of the conduct Of the United States towards the
muny Greytown called in question Should this point
be raised by any party having right 10 bring INTO DIS
cusson, there would be difficulty IN iustifyng the
bombardment upon well settled principles OF International
law and By memorable examples in the conduct OF the
most enlightened nations.
The President in bis annual message to Congress OF the
9TH Of December 1854 presented views that sub
iect, and reference to that document will render IN.
necessary to reproduce them in reply 20 the note of
Count de Sartges.
In dsposng Of the present application the United States
not called To vindicaie their towards those
who members OF the community Of Greytowu for the
provocaon and the proprety of the chasement so far
that community Is concerned are not 10 be brought
into discussion But the manner Of inactng the punish
en aud the consequences IN regard 70 foreign re:deus
IRE supposed to furnish grounds for an equitable claim
upon this for their losses on that occasion.
IL i presumed that there will be attempt to maintain
tina, individual members OF organized political body in
a case like this, be allowed 10 separate themselves
from the collective community and claim rights and i'm
munlles which do not belong 10 the whole association. II
would be preposerous TO hold that the associated body
deserved the punishment Inflicted rlon IT, and the ndvi
duas COMPOSING II entitled % indemnity Tor their suf
ferngs. II there persons GreytowD whea It was
bcmbarded who Old not belong 10 the pOcal organiza
ton there established aud who suffered In consequence Of
that hombardment, they can only resort Tor indemnity,
entitled TO IT, to that community II was 10 that cOmmu-
nifty they committed their persons and property and by
receiving thsm WITHIN its jurisdiction assumed the obll
CATION o protecting them. Nothing be clearly
established than the principle that foreigner domciled
country only look to that country Tor the protec
ton he entitled TO receive while within is territory AMI
that he sustans injury from the want Of that protection,
the country Of his domicle must indemnify him Il Is
scarcely necessary TO refer 70 70 establish this post
ton. few however, viii be alluded to FOR that purpose.
In 1852 Briqt subj ct by the name OF Ml,hcr NAL
treated ai Florence by officer belonging 20 an Austrian
garrison stationed az that place The British government
sought satisfaction from the government Of tuscany,
which resisted ne demand, and denied IL liability, upon
The ground that the Injury inflicted by an Austrian
cfceF and that Austria therefore the party which
committed the outrage aud ought 70 make the required
satisfaction Great Britain replied that the obi CATION to
inoennify rested on the government Of the country
wherein the wrong done aud that she conf not right
fully resor, 10 Austria Tor redress without assuming that
Tuscany was a dependency Of the Austrian Empire.
Though Tuscany most reluctantly forced o. tolerate
Austrian garrison AT Florence over which coGd ~
crcse 10 CONTROL vet ultimately recognized Us a0 ~ ior
the outrage pcrpcracd within the territory an made the
satisfaction demanded by the British government
The questions which arose out &C The bombardment Df
Antwerp Ia 1880 are stu more clearly illustrative OF the
principle Under consideration While Antwerp under
Dutch government foreign merchants brought their mer.
cbandise 10 that place with the intention OF rcsnppug
IT, They were required 10 deposit II IN government
warehouse which under the charge Of Dutch officials
Cy comm0 so0n after arose. aud, w oecnlhg tue
ETY. against The insurgents the warehouse and TIE mer
chaudisc IN Il destroyed by the Dutch troops Tbs
political struggle ended Nv scyerng Antwerp from the
III gdom of she Netherlands and became thereafter
rlrt Of Bcrum The government 81 the respective mer
chants whose property dcstroye BY tie lombard
ment, claimed indemnity Cor these losses from the king
dom OF gum The grounds OF the claim we're that tue
injury Indicted territory which, nj the time The
reclamation made, bad become part e Belgium but
Bel GUM attempted e. cyadc by alleging that the Dutch
government received the property, bad i possession,
ard destroyed T. aud from Holland, AMI not from Rel.
gum Indemnity must be sought The question as 70 the
liability of the respective governments FOR the neutral
property thus destroyed was much discussed The tact
thai the Dutch authorities received the property deposited
In a government warehouse, AMI destroyed u not
disputed. upon this question the British Minister ol Foreign
Affairs demanded the opinion u the Attorney Genera o.
England who decided that the Dutch government was not
liable tot The disaster occasoncd By the bombartmcgt
This conclusion was adopted BY al the Powers whose
citizens hal property destroyed AZ Antwerp The Mint
sters ot France Great Britain, Prussia and the United
Instructions from Their