The Washington union. [volume] (City of Washington [D.C.]) 1857-1859, 1859-02-01
VOL. XIV. NO 245.

Is established These circumstances are of themselves
quite sufficient 10 prevent the easy and frequent transfer
OF the claims from hand TO hand They would lead as
10 expect that To happen which actually has happened
and that Is that tho claims remain with their original
owners aud their legal heirs and tatiyes with
such exceptions as have already mentioned AS 20 the
portion of the claims now owned by underwriters it
hardly be necessary say that they stand the
equity and justice " possessed aud presented by the
of ships and goods There is more universal
maxim of law and justice throughout the civilized and
commercial world than that underwater who has paid
loss ships merchandise 10 the owner Is entitled To
whatever may be received from tho property His right
accues by the very act of payment and il the property,
its proceeds bc afterwards recovered in whole IN
part whether the recovery be from the sea- from cptos,
from the justice Of foreign States such recovery is for
the benefit of the underwater Any attempt therefore,
TO prejudice these claims, the ground that many Of
them belong 10 Insurance companies other untlerwri-
tiers, is at war with tho first principles OF Justice
short but accurate general view OF the history and
character of these claims is presented In the report of the
Secretary OF State the 10th of May 1926 In compl
with resolution OF the Senate Allow sir TO
read the paragraphs:
.fhe Secretary hardly suppose it to have been the
intention of the resolution o require the expression OF
rgumcntative opinion 10 the degree Of responsible
ty to the American sufferers from French spoliatons.
which the convention Of 1900 extingushcd, the part
of France devolved on the United States the Senate
itself being most competent TO decide that question.
Under this impression he hopes that Inc will have suci
entity confomcd to the purposes of the Senate by brief
statement prepared in hurried moment, of what he
understands 10 be the question
'1he second article Of the convention of 1900 was in
the following words .1hc ministers plenipotentary of
the parties not being allie TO agree present respect
ing the treaty of alliance of 9th Of February, IT'S, the
treaty Of amity and commerce of the date and the
convention Of the 14th November 1885, upon the
nicmnities mutually due claimed the parties will ne
gotiae further these subjects at convenient time
and until they may have agreed upon these points the
said treaties and convention shall have operation and
the relations OF the two countries shall be regulated as
follows
"When that convention was laid before the Senate it
gave its consent advice that should be ratified prov
e that the second article be expnnged and that the fol
lowing article be added inserted ut is agreed that
the present convention shall be in force for the term Of
eight years from the time of the exchange Of the mtic
tions and 1t was accordingly so ratified by the Pres
dent of the United States the 18th day of February
1901 On the Slst of July, Of the year. it rat
ied by Bonaparte First Consul of the French republic
who Incorporated in the instrument of his ratification the
following claise part Of 1t The government OF the
United States having added to its ratification that the
convention should be in force for the space of eight years
and having omitted the second article, the government
of the French republic consents to accept rtify and
confirm the above convention, with the addition import
ing that the convention shall be in force for the space Of
eight years. and with the retrcnchment of the second
ticc Provided that by this rctrencent the two States
renounee the respective petcsos which are the object
Of the said article
'Ihc French ratification being thus conditional was
nevertheless exchanged against that of the United States
at Paris the 3lst of July The President of the
United States considering it necessary again to submit the
convention in this state to the Senate the 18th day
of December, 1901 it resolved Iy the Senate that
they considered the said convention fully ratified and
returned it to the President for the usual promugaton
1t accordingly promulgated, and thereafter regarded
as valid and binding compact The two contracting
parties thus agreed by the retenchment of tho second
ce, mutually to renonnce the respective pretensons
which the object of that article The prctensions of
the United States to which alision is thus made arose
out of the spoliaons under color of French authority IN
contravention of law and existing treaties. Those OF
France sprung from the treaty of alliance of the 9th Feb
ruary, i77s, the treaty Of amy and commerce Of ths
date, and the convention of the lith November
! 1888. Whatever obga.nns indemnes from these
sources other party had right 10 demand were respect
! lively waived and abandoned and the considerations
which induced one party to renounce hs pretensons
that of rcnuncation by the oer party OF his preteons
What the value of the obligations and ndcmntos SO
recpFocy renounoed can only be matter Of speculation
The amount of the indemnteG due TO the citizens of the
| United States very large and, on the other hand
tho obligation great Ito specify no other French
pretension under which the United States were placed
in tho eleventh article of te treaty OF alliance Of the 9th
February, l7ss, by which they bound forever to
guarantee fr1m that time the then possessions of the
crown of France In America, well as those which il
might acquire by the future treaty of peace With Great
Britain All these possessions having heen II is believed
conquered at or not long alter tho exchange Of the r
cations Of the convention Of September, 1900 by the
arms of Great Britain, from France " 't'
"The fifth article of the amendments to the costitu-
on provides NOR shall private property be taken for pub
Hc use WiIhout just III the ndcmntles to
which citizens OF the United States were entitled for
French spoliatons prior to the 30th September 1900
have been appropriated to absovo the United Satea iso
the fulment of obligation which they hnd contract
ed or from the payment o ind9mnies which they were
bound to make 10 France the Senate is most competent
20 detSIme how far such appropriation is public uac
of private property within the spirit of the constitution
and whether equitable considerations do not require
compensation to be made 20 the claimants, The Senate
is also best able 70 estimate the probability which existed
Of ultimate recovery from France Of tho amount duo
for those indemnites if they had not been rcnounced in
making which estimate it WILL doubt give Just weight
10 the painful consideration that repeated and urgent ap
peals have been in vain made 10 the justice of France for
satisfaction of fragrant wrongs committed upon property
of other citizens of the United States subsequent the
/ period of 30th September, 1900"
Before the interference Of government with these
claims they constituted Just demands against the gov
ernment Of France They not vague expectations
OF possible future indemnity for injuries received up
certain to he regarded valuable to bo esteemed prop
erty. They were just demands and "a SUCH they
property The courts Of law took notice of them prop
erty They were easbe OF being devised of heing dis
buted am9ng heirs and next of KIM aud of being trans
errcd and assigned like other legal and just debts
Claim or demand Cor ship unusty seized and confsca
ted Is property, clearly the ship itself IL may not
be valuable certain, but IL is as clear right
and has been uniformly regarded by the courts of law
The papers show American citizens had claims aSGinst the
French government for six hundred md fifteen vessels,
unawully seized and confscad If this were 1t Is diff
cult to how tho government OF the United States can
release these claims for its own benefit with any more
propety than IL could have applied the money 10 its
own use IL the French government had been ready to
legally seizcd and confscatcd on how the government
rould itself caims which the