The Washington union. [volume] (City of Washington [D.C.]) 1857-1859, 1859-02-01


wrong committed the Of the United States
and the refusal of indemnity by the government OF France,
proceed 70 say ''Ihis conduct Of the Erench Tepub
lie would wen have Justified an Immediate declaration Of
the part OF the United States but desirous OF
maintaining peace, and still willing to leave open the
door Of reconciliation with France, tho United States
tented themselves with preparations for defence, and
measures calculated TO protect their commerce" ["
IL is equally clear the other hand that neither the
French government the French ministers, acted
the supposon that had existed between the two ma
tons and u was for this that they held the trea
ties OF lT7S still binding Within month or two Of
the signatures Of the treaty the ministers penpotentiary
of the French republic write thus biesss Ellsworth,
Dayie, and Murray 'ln tho trst place, they will IN
sst upon the principle already laid down in their former
note viz that the treaties which united France and the
United States NOT broken that could not
have broken them but that the state Of misunderstood
ing which has existed for some time between France and
the United States by the act of agents. rather than
by the will of the respective governments has not beena
state of war, at least on the side of France
Finally sir the treaty itself what is itH 1t Is not
called treaty of peace il does not provide for putting
end 20 hostities IL says not word Of any pre-
celiGlg but it docs say that differences have
arisen between the two States and that they have there
fore respectively appointed their pGmpotentiare and
given them full powers 70 treat upon those dferonces
Bat the second article Of the treaty negotiated and
agreed ON by the ministers of both governments, is OF
ITSELF complete refutaton OF the whole argument which
is urged against this b the ground that the claims
had been extnguished by war since that article distinct
y and expressly acknowledges the existence of the claims,
and contains solemn pledge that the two governments,
not being able 10 agree them at present. will negotiate
further ON them at convenient time thereafter. Whether
look then, TO the decisions of the American courts to
the acts of Congress TO the instructions Of the American
executive government to the language of minister's
TO the declarations of the French government and the
French minister's to the uncquvoca language Of the
treaty itself originally agreed to- meet irresistible
proof of the truth OF the declaration that the state of
misunderstanding which had existed between the two
countries not
If the treaty had remained as the ministers on both
sides agreed upon it, the claimants though their ndem
nifty postponed would have had Just claim their
government But the treaty did not remain in this
state This second article stricken by the SEN
ate and In order to the obvious motive of the Senate
in thus striking out the second article, allow TO read
the whole article. II is in these words:
The ministers penpotentiary of the two parties not
being able to agree at present respecting the treaty of
alliance of the 9th of February, l7TS the treaty of amy
and commerce of the date, and the convention of
the l4th of November, lT8S, upon the indemntes
mutually due claimed the parties will negotiate fur
ther on these subjects at convenient time and until
they may have agreed upon these points, the said treaties
and convention shall have operation, and the rea
tions of the two countries shall be regulated follows
The article thus STIMULATING to make the claims of
France, under the old treaties, matter of further nego
tion in order to get rid Of such negotiation and th"
whole subject, the Senate struck out the emit
and ratified tho treaty in this oorrA~ e. Eavno
ratified the treaty as th'' ;th a. fmther
declaration tho 80 mhehueo, WIN "a. % i.
the - ..-o,p thus retTenChlng tle seconu
nations The respective trta'sions uch 'eere
ne object Of he article In this declaration OF the French
government the Senate afterwards acquiesced SO that
the government of France by this rctrenchment agreed
to her claims under the treaties of ITS and
the United States in like manner renounced the claims
! Of their ctizens for indemnities due TO them,
4 And this proves, sir, the second proposition which
stated at the commencement of my remarks, VIZ that
these claims released reinqushed extinguished
by the amendment of the treaty. and its ratification as
amended 1t is only necessary to add, on this point that
these claims for captures before 1S00 would have been
good claims under the late treaty with France, and wond
have come in for dividend in the fund provided by that
treaty. If they had not been released by the treaty OF
1900. And they excluded from all participation
in the benefit of the late treaty because OF such ro
| lease or cxtinguishment by that of 1900 - s.t-t al.
In the third place, sir it is TO be proved If 1t be not
proved already that these claims surrendered OF
leased by the government of the United States
tiona considerations, and for objects in which these
claimants had interest than any other citizens
Now sir do not feel called on to make out that the
claims and complaints OF France against the government
of the United States well founded 1t is certain that
she put forth such claims and complaints and insisted on
them the end 1t is certain that by the treaty Of al
lance of l77S the United States did guaranty to France
her West India possessions 1t is certain that by the
treaty of commerce of the date the United States
stipulated that French vessels might bring their
prizes into the ports of the United Staes and that the
enemies of France should not enjoy that privileges and
il Is certain that France conended that the Uuited States
had plainly violated this article well by their subse
quent treaty with England by other acts of the gov
ernment For the violation of these treaties she claimed
indemnity from the government of the United States.
Without admitting the justice of these pretesions the
government of the United States found them extremely
embarrassing and they authorized ministers IN France
\ to buy them of by IN ,ney. a % ~ t F'At@ #t
For the purpose of showing the justice of the present
BILL il Is not necessary to insist that France right in
these pretensions Right wrong the United States
anxious to get rid of the cmbarrncns which they
occasionod They willing to compromise the mat
ter The existing state of things, then, was exactly
| this: aEt sH atu iaN
France admitted TINT citizens of the United States had
Just claims against her but she insisted that She the
other hand had just claims against the government OF
| the United States. 4i
She would satisfy our citizens till government
agreed to satisfy her Finally treaty is ratified, by
| which the claims on both sides are ronounced p
The only question is whether the REIMBURSEMENT of
these individual claims the price which the United
States paid for the rcnqushen by France OF her claims
against our government And who doubt IL Look
to the negotig tion The claims both siics
discussed together Look to the second article of the
treaty us originally agreed TO- The cims both sides
there reserved together and look TO the Senate
amendment, and to the subsequent declaration of the
French government acquosced in by the Senate, aud
there he claims bM sides Tenouan &fogaiT. What
stronger proof could there be Of mutuaty of consider
ation Sir allow me to put this direct question TO the
honorable member from New York II the United States
did not agree 10 these claims in consideration
that France would renounce hers what the reason
why they surrendered thus the claims of their cti
zes Did they do IL without any consideration Mt all
Was the surrender wholly gratutous Did they thus
solemn claims for indemnity, SO just long
insisted by themselves the object OF two special mis-
sons the subject of much previous controversy and
at tmo being the Of open wardid the
government surrender and renounce them gratutously