The New York herald., 1868-04-21

lust read declares that for public necessity
be put in prison. ana this is public necessity.
count that put the argument in support OF this bn.
There are difficulties occurring between NATIONS
there are powers which every naton naS 20 t te e
other day. One Is the suspension OF c0mmercia IN
tercourse another ia embargo and there are yarl.
has a right to exercise for the protection OF its
own citizens and for the prOect0n OF its
own rights within the limit OF war Inis figma a o. an
power. Every government has right for its own
protection to arrest a citizen OF foreign country
country and to put an embargo on any intercourse
with 1t. 1t may extend this power Just ~ lar as IL
pleases We limit i in this, tins case srI 70 the & exeI
for the same object-not TO punish that
person. not to njure him. but to compel his govern
ment to consider the claim which we make. That is
the object which we have In view. said the other
day that this was not barbarous proceeding. say
now that it is not barbarous proceeding. 1t is
an act of the highest civilization, and the govern
ment OF the United States, let me say, never
acquired recognition OF any Of its rights
Just such proceedings. When teneral Jackson was
President he found controversies between TINS gov
ernment and al other governments aa9 R
means of demanding attention to them. we had
difficulties with France, difficulties with England,
They dsregarded every claim which we made upon
them, and gave us no satisfaction, no hearing.
we had liberty 70 say voa as do my not o sh
thing You win not be on friendly relations with u.s."
But this was not enough for General Jackson; nor
was 1t enough for the government OF the United
States He selected the strongest OF tile government
and brought the questions with that government to
ment Of France and said 'Unless the government OF
France recognizes its obligations to this country we
win seize It's vessels and It's property, and we VIII
take any other measures that shall secure the rights
eminent inc s e yield the points, France did yield.
Mr.. DAWES (interrupting)-My colleague has
f0unded hia hill that II Ia the ODll-
cation Of this government to protect its citizens in
foreign countries 4 they are guilty Of no offence
to do It by visiting that same penalty upon innocent
foreigners travelling In our own country. Mr..
with my colleague that. it is, to defend the
rights OF our citizens In foreign countries who
committed no oence against the the Jaws Of those
this country against foreign citizen who has COM
mitted crime just precisely that which we propose
to 60 to with another country for doing toward
our citizens. We propose to 60 to with foreign
country for imprsoning our citizens who have not
committed any offence, and yet we propose to write
thing against any innocent foreigners In this country
Mr.. BANKs-My colleague begs the question. We
other country. We propose simply in reference to
the government Of that country. Our difficulty is
with the government, and II the English or tn the
rights OF its citizens, the first thing will be to settle
this question between US and them: My colleague,
Mr.. Dawes, talks about his willingness
war. NV other colleague, Mr. Elliot does mean
war: II they cannot take sun1cient action and are
ment in this way they do not mean that this country
shall be involved In war. The Committee OF Foreign
Affairs does not look for war with any other govern
ment What we want is that that question shall not
drag along until passionate and misguided persons
shall involve us In war by committing this govern
ment or any other government.
MT HARDlNG.-I understand the gentleman to argue
that the question involved is not of sufficient magni-
tude to get TO war about, and understand that the
measure proposed in your bill is partial war.
Mr.. BANKs-No, sir; it Is the subject Of the eXer-
else OF sovereign power, which In the end, II dsre-
garded, would lead to war;
Mr HARDING-That is my construction of it.
Mr.. BANKs-The measure itself Is not an act OF war
according to our Interpretation.
Mr. HARDING--It is the seizure of the subject OF
our enemy, and is justidable on that account.
Mr. BANKs--It Is not an act OF war; but II the gov
ernment against whom 1t is directed should compel
TO 90 to war upon that question, we must abandon
independence or take tina. step If they otter It,.
General Jackson's action was exactly OF " this
tanned to this day a settlement with
not only brought us settlement Of our affairs
with France, but 1t brought us settlement Of all
our WIN When nay ava wva p tr ana wn
to refer. All this was produced by the policy OF
General Jacksons administration and that policy
was the policy embodied in this bill. Had II not
been for this action OF General Jackson would
have had controversies and quarrels leading
but leading to war against the whole Of Europe BY
his action all these were settled and at the close OF
his great administration it was in the govern
ment Of this country there was not single out.
standing controversy between the United States and
any Of the States o Europe. He did it In this way,
on the contrary It was peace. It was
civilization, it avoiding war; and it vlndicated
the honor of the United States and secured to our
citizens their rights II my colleagues undertake to
pin US down to the doctrine that this s mere exer
else OF criminal law they are mistaken. 1t is the
to war; but which is in itself sufficient to vindicate
the honor OF the country and to enforce the recogn
ton Of & the rights t Of % our citizens; as n. n,n
ther the bill did not provide for the arrest OF SUBJ
ject Of foreign country before any investigation
was made as to the arrest In that country OF United
States citizensS
Mr.. BANKS replied that it did not require investga-
tion into individual cases. The bill was based upon
the principles OF hostage.
Mr.. BENTON would then like to inquire whether 1t
would prevent an innocent person being arrested in
this country In place OF an American citizen arrested
In foreign country and who was actually guilty Of
crimef
with crime. What was objected to was the claim Of
foreign governments that theo had right to hold
American citizens on the ground that they owed al-
legance to those governments. So long as they
refuse to consider that question 80 long the United
States government had q right TO exercise
its Claims. He had shown its eject IN General
Jackson's administration. II this question had been
extended into General Jackson's administration as
Il had been now, he would never have allowed the
question to remain unsettled and his memory would
have been so mnch the more potent than 1t s now.
tic n0d Deen asked IN Tclercncc 10 tnc fTuSSnn
treaty and he would say that It was an important
matter. Sir said he the Prussian treaty had
transferred legislation over the rights of
American citizens from the United States and its
government TO the government Of Prussia. Prussia
granted in that treaty such rights as she chose TO
acknowledge. The government OF the United States
had do definite policy In reference to the matter
which would have prohibited our Minister from ne
gotiatng treaty on that question. The result OF
which Is that we have Prussian treaty-a treaty
which allows all the laws OF Prussia to be I'm opera
ton against any naturalized citizen OF this
country, who returns to tnat country. 1f
an action OF any kind can be made
to lie against him. | venture 10 predict
that that treaty embodies within itself provisions
which will require other negotiations and further
action on the part OF our government want TO
see law established In this country which shall he
the basis OF European legislation ON the subject My
colleague has called attention TO the excellent pro-
visions IN the preamble Sir, they are moth
ing; they are mere declarations TO no
eject and OF not the slightest conse-
auence They are well. hut they enforce