The Democratic advocate. [volume] (Westminster, Md.) 1865-1972, 1888-08-18
VOL. xxIII.-NO. II.


opposed to the conclusions arrived at in the forty
five reports of committees of previous Congresses,
and so variant with the findings of the Court Of
Claims after twice hearing arguments in these cases.
that only new evidence since discovered could jus
tiy and sustain this radical departure from the ac-
cepted history of these claims.
But close examination Of these views diseloses
no new evidence against the justice of these claims
nor do they any reasoning upon their history
and evidence which was not presented TO the Court
of Claims by the attorneys who ably represented
the United States before that court
The voluminous history OF these claims and of the
negotiatons between France and the United States
for their settlement has been so often snd so fully
reviewed by committees of Congress, and has been
exhaustively investigated in the three opinions
of the Court of Claims that 1t would seem useless 10
consume more time in effort to make more clear
their justice and equity.
But the views" presented by majority of the
committee are entitled to consideration, more from
respect due to the members who sign them than for
| the reasons and arguments presented therein. The
resume embodies conclusions unfavorable to the
payment ofthese claims, aud though unaeeompan-
led with recommendation they can not be under
stood in any other way than arguments for strik
ing these appropriations from the bill.
The very large interests held by citizens Of Mary
land in the present findings of the court as well as
in those which are yet pending in the Court os
Claims, make it my duty to state the reasons which
induce me to differ with the majority of the COM
mittee, for whose opinions entertain the greatest
respect. The conclusions OF the views may be
condensed as follows:
First, That the claimants under the most favor.
able argument would be entitled only to the pecu-
MARY value of the claims at the date of the treaty in
1900 and that these claims had no oappreciable value
because France would notpay them and the United
States could not compel her to do so.
Il is doing manifest injustice TO the great states
men ofthat period of the history of our country to
suppose that extraordinary diplomatic missions
composed of Pinckney, Marshall and Gerry, and
afterwards of Ellsworth, ChiefJustce of the United
States, Davis, and Murray would have been super
added to the efforts of Minister Norris as well as to
those of Minister Monroe, to obtain settlement OF
claims which had appreciable value or that the
long negotiations, supplemented by extensive pre-
parations for war, would have been permitted to
widen the friendly relations existing between
France and the United States about claims which
France would not recognize nor could be made to
pay. In the first part of the views "apprecia-
BILE value" in these claims is set down at the exag-
gerated estimate of siOOOOOOO, and throughout the
argument IS O0Ois assumed as the amount always
| heretofore recognized by Committees of Congress-
not only recognized +appreciable value" in these
claims, but unmistakably declared for their recog-
milton and payment by the United States and lastly
the Court of Claims the arbier selected by Congress
and governed by the rules of evidence, has found
an "apprccable value" fora portion ofthese claims
which this House ordered last December to be put
upon the deficiency bill for its consideration.
| Second The Views further hold that the United
States Senate by striking the second clause from the
treaty of 1900 abandoned the further prosecution
of these claims without agreement, settlement, or
acknowledgment OF demands on either side, and
that there was valuable consideration to tn
United States in the abandonment by France other
pretensons to the treaties of 177s because those
pretensions had been annulled by the unfriendly
acts of France by the abrogaon act Of Congress of
July, 1898, and by the existence of actual war
These are the very questions which have been at
issue from 1900 to the present time, and with the
weight and influence of the views the country
will consider the forty-fVe reports of committees
and the deliberate findings of the Court Of Claims.
II to iudicially determ inc these identical issues
that the Court of Claims was empowered to consider
these claims and for their elucidation before that
court the United States appeared by able attorneys,
and the Congress authorized the appointment of the
distinguished commission, composed of Mr.. Broad
head and Mr.. Tuck, to visit France and her ancient
colonies and collect evidence to be used by the
Court of Claims in udicially determining the very
questions which the views again invoke to cloud
our judgment After the fullest argument and the
most careful consideration the Court of Claims has
rendered its Judgment against each and every posi-
tion taken in the views"
The second clause of the proposed treaty of 1900
was in these words:
The ministers plenipotentiary of the two parties
not being able to agree at present respecting the
treaty of alliance of the 9th February. 177S the
treaty of amity and commerce of the same date and
the convention of the lIth November l7SS, nor upon
the indemnitss mutually due or claimed, the par
ties will negotiate further on these subjects at con-
venient time. and until they may have agreed upon
these points the said treaties and convention shall
have operation and the relations of the two coun
tries shall be regulated as follows
This the court holds to have been "compromise"
forced by the French Government and accepted by
our ministers but admitting all that was claimed
under the old treaties open to discussion and not
providing for the indemnities. The Senate in ad
vising the ratification of the treaty expunged this
second article and in its place provided that
1t is agreed that the present convention shall be
in force for the termof eight years from the time of
exchange of negotiations.
The First Consul Of France consented to accept,
ratify, and confirm" the convention adding to the
Senates rerenchment of the second article as fol-
lows:
Provided That by this retrenehment the two states
renounee the respective pretensions which are the
object of the said article.
This treaty, ratified with the senates retrench-
ment and Napoeon's proviso, was practical adop-
ton by the United States of the second branch of
the French proposition, namely
Either the ancient treaties with the privileges re-
sulting from priority and the stipuatons of recip-
rocal indemnities or new treaty, assuming eqaliiy
without indemnify.
The United States accepted the alternative of "a
new treaty, assuming equality without indemnity
because by doing so we avoided war with England.
By the treaties of 177s the United States had for
ever" bound herselfto maintain France in her col
onial possessions and to grant her exclusive pryi-
leges to ports and pryateers but by the Jay treaty
England had been admitted to the same privileges
which had been granted exclusively to France. 1t
impossible for the United States to fulfil the obli-
cations of these conflicting treaties, and her minis
ters, instructed to so negotiate with France
that, while escaping from the embarrassments of
conflicting privileges to both France and England,
full indemnity from France for these claims should
be insisted upon and obtained.
The Senate and Napoleon, by the retrenchInent
and provisio gave quietus to the treaties of 177s
and with them all the obligations arising under
them passed from the arena Of international CON
tention France reinqushing her rights in exchange
for release from her obligations and the United
States escaping from the embarrassmentsofc conflict
ing treaties by every principle of right and justice
incurred the pecuniary obligations of France to our
citizens, namely, the French spoliation claims.
The Court of Claims holds that this was the "bar-
gain" to which Mr. Madison referred in his letter to
Mr.. Pinckney from which the United States derived
practical and important benefit and advantage at
the supreme to her cizeus OF their great pecu
MARY claims. The court quotes Mr.. Pinckney. Sec
retary of State to two Presidents Mr.. Madison, Mr.
Clay. chefJustice Marshall. and the reports Of
forty five committees in favor of the payment of
these claims against three reports made prior to
1896, when the diplomatic correspondence was made
public, since the publication of which no commit
tee of Congress has reported unfavorably on these
claims.
The views" hold further that the abrogation act
of July 1885, recognized the treaties IT'S as having
been violated by France. and that the act of Con-
gress of that date rghtful and valid exercise
Of power by the United States which removed all
validity and force Of the old treaties after that date
In other words that the OF July T. 1898 establish
ed date after which war existed which obIiterated
all claims either upon France the United States.
and LEFT these claimants after that date. without
49, III. f.fr.r