The Rutland daily globe. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1873-1877, 1874-01-30

GROUNDS as the argument by The opposi-
ton, which we give In brief A failure on
the part of the government to col
lect did not make them liable If 80, the
nation wonld be overwhelmed with debt,
and 'endless trouble and confusion" would
ensue moreover, that this principle of
mon liability" has been frequently and re-
pcatedly recognized by this and other gov.
erhments, as in other treaties with France,
and in treaties with England, Denmark,
Spain and other countries. Furthermore,
it is claimed that the government did all in
its power to protect our merchant vessels,
and that we invited the hostility of France
by the repeated violation of the treaties of
111S in the interest of her enemy. Fur
thermorc, it may be statco, that in July,
t10S, Congress enacted a law, which re-
ceived the approval of the President, cx-
plicitly declaring that 1.-THE United States
" arc of right freed and exOnorated from
the stipulaticns of the treaties aud of the
consular convention heretofore conclud-
cd between the United States and France,
and that the same shall not henccforth
be regarded as legally obligatory on the
government or citizens Of the United
States" Not satisfied with this, during
the same month, AMI only two days there.
after, Congress authorized the public armed
ships OF the United States to capture all
French armed ships, whether found in
American waters or on the high seas, their
condemnation. sale and the distribution of
the proceeds among the captors; and, also,
authorized the President to grant "letters
OF maqrue and rcprisal"-that is to COM
mission prvateers or private cruiscrs-for
the same purpose. We need not follow
out their argument further than to give one
additional reason, which Is to the effect
that we had no right to demand damages
OF France, because our vessels public,
privatccrs and merchantmen were all used
in the interest Of their enemy aud for the
purpose of "shcltering the property of
England under the American flan.
Having presented to our readers the orr
gin and nature Of these claims, and sum
Marie the arguments for and against their
payment we have word to say in conclu-
sion. 1t is strange feature of our govern
mcnt, TO Use the language of Mr.. Benton,
in speaking of these claims, ''that no num-
Der of reflections decide anything in favor of
government single decision in their ia
vor decides all against it," In writing in
1Sj0-and it is also, true of 1S73-hc
says 1T still continues to importunc the
two Houses, and, though bafilcd for fifty
yelrs'-now seventy-four ycars--''is as per-
tinacious as ever. Surety there ought to be
some limit 10 the preSentGtion of the same
claim. II is a game in which the government
has no ciance." We, as must every citizen.
cordially agree with Mr., Benton in this
and it is strange that Senators and Repre-.
sentatives do not see it in the same light.
In individual transactions there is limit
beyond which claim cannot be presented
as 1t is presumed to be paid or abandoned.
and why should there not be such limit as
to claims against the government. This
presumption OF payment, ETC., to which
we have referred, is entirely different from
what we know as the statute of limita-
tons The lapse of time is, of itself.
sufficient to bar these claims Then again
the United States cannot be sued in court
OF law, II II could be, Il judgment would
be complete and final. In such claims,
Congress and the President stand in the
place OF It court, and why should not de-
termination Of Il claim by them be final
If necessary to stop this constant prescnta-
ton of the same claim after it has been
rejected n score of times, let consttu-
tional amendment be adopted to that end.
But it may he said that it would not be lust
and equitable for government to refuse
the payment Of the just claims of her ctl-
gems. Admitted but who are the best
judges of the justice and equity of those
claims? those who lived at the time they
are supposed to hayc accrued. or those who
were not born at the time those who leg
islated at that day, or their successors who
leglsla!cd from half TO three quarters Of
century thereafter. But this aside, is not
the argument conclusive against the legal
ty and justice Of the claims, when it it
considered that most Of them accrued after
the acts Of July 1893, which abrogated the
treaties Of IT'S, and authorized our ships of
war and privateers to capture French YES
ses--being in effect declaration or actual
state of war between the two countries.
One more consideration and we are
through. We will state it IN the form of
query, without elaboration. Would any
of our citizens have had any claim against
the government for property destroyed by
the confederate pirates il the Geneva Tri-
bunal had not awarded damages against
Great Britain, which were paid by that
government Did not American vessels.
knowing the state of affairs, run their own
risk and 1t is q conceded fact that the
profits Of every successful voyage made
one Of the original claimants agains, France
more than doubled the loss sustained by
four or five captures and confscations
singular Freak OF n BOstOnian,
y GDpp;p1 Iishotph from, (,anann II