The Washington union., 1858-02-18
lAdyertiserncnt
FRENCH SpOLIATTON CLAIMS.


FRENCH SpOIIA11ON CLAIMS "
The French spoiation claims Of citizens which
originated prior the date Of the convention with France
OF September 80, lsOO and by it bartered by
government to France for great political and pecunary
considerations, again before Congress,
On this subject very many favorable and elaborate
ports have been made by the most talented committees Of
each house. to which another has recently been added by
the Hon. Mr.. Clittentien
As to the merits of these clams the necessity for these
detailed and volumnous reports able and conclusive
they conessedly are, did not at any time exit since
the whole subject is clearly set out and fully establish
ed by the most prominent of that day, and
particularly by the following brief and indputabe
thory, viz
The Secretary of State Mr. Madison, in an official
municaton dated February g. 1904 tsee sciia.s docu-
ments, vol s. inst session Nineteenth Congress, page
1857 says
1.-The claims from which France released were ad
mttcd by France and The release for valuable
iderton in correspondent release of the United States
| for certain claims on them.
And the constitution Of the United States provides
g Nor shall private property be taken for public
without just compensation.
On these two points hang all the facts and the law in
the These nsurmountabIe barriers TO any
| troyersy. JUSTICE
From Union, January IL, 1856
With the view Of assisting in the formation of correct
opinions to the Justice of the French spoation claims
we have introduced Into columns the which
they have bscn advocated and opposed by statesmen of
great ability without stating own conclusions the
question. We free to admit that the examination
have given to the subject has resulted in conviction in
opposition to the impressions with which commenced
the investigation The saleness Of the claims had raised
in mind the presumption that they must be of doubt
full Justice otherwise, 1t seemed strange that they should
facts which the claims based dhcult Of
cess and we're contained in such Of documents
which belong to the transactions of another century that
chose rather TO reject the claims upon the presumption
arising from lapse Of time than to encounter tho labor
Of thorough investigation. Such the inclination of
mind the question when II became necessary for u.s.
the conductor Of the Uno to investigate the subject
for the purpose of forming definite opinion That nycs
tgation has removed all doubt to the justice of the
claims, and propose TO state in few words the
views which our opinion Is fotided.
There is controversy to the spoatiois committed
on American commerce by the French during the
between England aud France in 1893 Nor is there any
controversy to the original liability of the French gov
ernment to injured merchants for these spoations
they fully and constantly admitted by tho French
government That France longer liable is also free
Of controversy But the injured citizens have
received epaaon the controversy arises between them
and their own government to whether their
ment has assumed the liability incurred by France
careful examination of the presents with the
following facts Our government bound to France
by treaty stpuatons entered into in l77s and 1885, for
the failure to comply with which in 1893, when France
and England at war, France set up large claims
against government On the other hand, citi-
had large claims against France for injuries done 10
them individual merchants during that Our
government undertook to prosecute these individual
claims against France The French government admit
ted their validity, but insisted she had claims of larger
amount against our government After much negotia
on the dispute settled by aconventon in which the
respective claims were mutually released France, on
her part released her cains and gave up the spuls.
ons under which they originated in consideration that
government would release her from the claims of
citizens for injuries inflicted their commerce
The convention concluded these terms, and the
question arises whether government thereby became
liable to s citizens for the claims thus released to
France
sch state Of facts. Nor do believe that nny diff
ference did exist amongst the who personally
cognzant Of the transactions The claims not paid
not because they not regarded justly DUE but be-
cause the amount was large, and government
poorly able to make payment As the claims, however
grew STALE controversy to the liability of the govern
ment sprung up The only point OF objection made
which has much aemblancc of force in it is which, it
to it little becomes government to rely
upon 1t has been said that there actual state Of
war between government and that of France when
the injuries inflicted and therefore that the indvid
uas injured could have claims That this il after
thought IL clear from the fact that France admitted the
claims to be VALID and both France and the United States
settled upon the agreement that their relations of peace
alleged by government that the claims were not valid
because the injuries took place in state of between
the two governments, cannot comprehend. France
disputed the claims upon any such grounds, al
though she primarily liable and admitted her lab
ity. Our government sent commissioners to France to
insist upon the payment of the claims and in 1900
tually obtained satisfaction from France With what
reason or justice could our government afterwards repu
diae its liability upon the allegation that there
were any valid claims We treated them valid
claims, and such obtained from France release Of
heavy liabilities to her. Surely, then, government
is forever csoppcd from controycrtng the validity Of the
claims.
In the great argument of Silas Wright against these
claims, which based mainly the objection have
just noticed he fell into the Of supposng that these
claims provided for in treaty of 1908 with France
He afterwards admitted his error however, and rested his
opposition chiefly upon the point before Indicated We
conclude, therefore, that the French spoation claims
constitute valid and susisting debt against govern
ment, and, without knowing the amount or who will be
benefited, trust that the debt will be paid
Feb 1s--lt--paid
CARD.