The Rutland daily globe. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1873-1877, 1874-01-29

either country 'contraband goods being al
ways excepted" 1t was further stipulated,
that the goods and subjects of an enemy
should be free on the ships of either coun-
try, except goods contraband, and soldiers
and sailors Of the enemy. 1t was also,
agreed, in substance, that the prizes of the
one country could be taken into the ports of
the other for trial, condemnation and sale /;
that no shelter should be given by one
country to the vessels of the enemy of the
otheri and that the ports of either country
should be open for the building and repair
ing Of ships, purchase of supplies, etc. 1t
will be seen that reciprocal obligations were
created Of an extraordinary character, but
the benefit, at thatt and for years there
after, was all on the side of the United
States. We were then struggling for our
very existence, we obtained place of re-
fngc, and for repairing and rcfitting our
cruisers and, also, men and money to carry
on w0r. All this France did for us, while
the prospect seemed almost hopeless that
we should ever have it in our power to aid
her.
This was in 1918, but in few years
there was change. With the aid of
France, we achieved our independence,
and were fairly under way with the new
government, when, in 1893, war was de-
clarcd between Great Britain and France.
Now was the time to reciprocate on our
part and perform our treaty obligations.
The first act, however, of the United States
was, under the advice of Washington
and most OF the leading statesmen Of the
day, to declare strict neutrality between
the contending parties during the continu-
ancc of the war. This was a direct viola
ton of the treaty, and France, if she had
SO desired, could have considered it as an
abrogation thereof but she did not, even.
complain of this course. She did, however.
claim, and for time exercise the right,
under the treaty. Of purchasing ships here,
bringing her prizes into our ports for CON
demnauOn, etc, etc. Great Britain pro-
tested against this and the United States
again violated the treaty by prohibiting
France from purchasing or fitting out YES
SelS in our ports or arming prvatccrs
soon after France WAS, practically, pre-
vented from bringing her prizes into our
ports for adjudication and condemnation
France now began TO find fault, to remon-
stratc, as, also, to rclaliac, although there
was an excuse for this, aside from our ac-
ton in reference to the treaties The prin-
ciple established between the two countries
that free ships made free goods, was in
this case, like the handle of Jug, all on
one side. Great Britain could, and did.
take French property out of American
ships, while France. if she lived up to the
treaty, could not take British goods out of
the same vessels. The result was that
from that time to 1900, France disrcgarded
the treaty, searched American vessels, took
goods thcrcfrom and was not very particu-
lar to discriminate between those owned
by citizens of the United States and Great
~ i'sAih. iNiil 100 W lCUb, SONIC UOZcn
or more retaliatory acts were passed by
Congress terms of which it is unneces-
sary to givc-thc result of which was that
a large amount of French property was
captured or destroyed by our cruisers, and
an equal or greater amount Of property
owned by American citizens was confiscat-
ed or destroyed by French cruisers
1t needs no labored argument to prove
that il the treaties of 1918 were considered
by the two countries as still obligatory-and
OF binding force, the government of France
was indebted to the United States for a
certain sum to be agreed upon, and that
there was similar obligation on the part
OF this country to the other. Neither does
1t require anything but the statement of the
facts to show that France owed this sum
TO the United States, not as such, but in
trust TO be pad, pro rata, to such of her
citizens as had sustained the losscs-,he
United States, as such, not having suffered
my material loss That this treaty was
in force by France, at least, is
evident from subsequent negotiations be-
tween the two countries, and the action of
France on the treaty resulting thcrefrom.
In the treaty of 1900, ratified by France on
lcr part, was an article abrogating those of
IT'S, and. also, providing that ''the parties
will further negotiate upon the indem-
lties mutually due or claimed" on the part
If either country. This clause was re-
ccted by the Senate and the treaty as final.
y ratified by both countries, in view of this
,lause, provides that "thc two states re-
bounced their respective pretensions" that
8 the claims Of the one government
N the other. 1t is upon this nc
ion Of our government that the
French Spolation Claims" are
Jased the ground-or, rather, one of
hem Upon which it is made is that the
-nited States by voluntarily reinquishing
money ciaiD. by offsctting one money
lain against another, stands in the same
position as If it had actually received the
mount thereof in cash. We will not at this
imc, consider the arguments, pro and
on, by which il has been enleavored to
upport or resist the validity of the claims,
'ut may refer 20 them some other time.
they amount, as yariously estimated, from
Wc!Yc 10 twenty millions OF dollars and |
&, one time, bill appropriating five mil |
ions Of dollars failed by single vote of |