Wichita eagle., 1889-01-13
THE FRENCH spoL1Ar1oN CLAIMS
A Manly Protest Against Continued In
justice.

that the END Is not Tar distant for {
payment of the French spoiiation debt:
at least. Within the last month th'
Evening Post, of New York, the New
York Times and your own valued journal
wholly without suggestion, SO far as
know, from any source, have contained
thoughtful articles on the injustice Oh
neglect Of congress, and l am bound t.
believe that in doing this you have giver
expression to the general public
sentiment. Would it be asking
too much to request, as ar
additional service the insertion
of the following letter, written by very
prominent citizen of Mississippi to The
Hon. T. r. StockdaIe, his representative
in the lower house? If you can do this
you will be doing the cause Of justice as
much good as lies in the power of any
one man. NM. L. EARLE.
Washington, Jan. 3
Mr.. PINTARD's STATEMENT.
NATCHEZ, Miss, Dec. 81, 1888.
| DEAR SIR: l am directly interested in
the claims for French spoilations through
my grandfather, Mr.. John N. Pintard,
for many years United States consul at
| Madeira, whose losses amounted to over
! 100000. An illustration of their nature
may be found in the seizure and condem-
nation of the brig Calliope, whereof he
was half owner. She was an American
vessel built and registered in New York,
in February, 1897, was carrying a cargo
of wine and dry goods from Teneriffe
| to Curoca or st. Bartholomew, and the
said ground of the decree of the prize
court of the French republic at Basse
Terre was that she was bound to an
! English port. No question can arise but
! that the treaty of 1878 was then of full
| force, and in the twenty-third article
| thereof viii be found this express pro-
! vision:
1T shall likewise be lawful for the
subjects and inhabitants aforesaid to sail
with the ships and merchandise afore-
mentioned, and to trade with the same
liberty and security from the places,
ports and Ravens of those who are enc
mics of both or either party, without any
opposition or disturbance whatsoever,
not only directly from the places of the
enemy aforementi oned to neutral places.
but also from one place belonging to an
enemy to another place belonging to an
enemy, whether they be under the juris-
diction of the same prince or under sew
eral"
The entire negotiation, which resulted
in the treaty OF 1900, and the report of
Mr.. Giles in 1902, and of Gen. Marion in
1907, show, beyond dispute, that these
claims were released to France on a con-
sideration Of release to the United
States from their liability growing out of
past dereliction, and our obligations for
the future as well. France had complet-
ed her obligation, and the treaty Of al
lance was executed when France main
tanned effectually the liberty, sovereignty
and independence absolute and unlimit-
ed of the said United States" The part
Of the United States in the past had not
been kept, and to keep those obligations
for the future had become impossible in
consequence of the treaty of 1894 with
Great Britain, commonly called the Jay
treaty In the face of these facts the
refusal of the prayers OF these claim
ants for just compensation for their
property taken for public use
on the ground that they were
pressed automatically to the verge of
war and their payment was refused,
should never escape honest lips. They
were recognized and paid by France in
the release of most valuable treaty
rights, which the United States had guar
anteed to her as the price OF her hel p in
achieving our independence.
This sale and release of our claims was
after the alleged war which, it is pre-
tended, rendered them invalid and all
that there was, even of hostilities limit
ed in their nature and extent, had ter
minated. As France and the United
States treated and traded over the claims
after this imaginary war was over, how
can the argument of war with an honest
mind of ordinary intelligence? But the
arguments of Messrs. Breckenridge, Of
Kentucky, and Hooker, of our own state,
have effectually disposed of the question
of war.
The other point made in opposition to
the payment of these claims Is their
amount. In very extraordinary paper,
filed by the committee on appropriations,
it is stated that the claims exceed thirty
millions, but it is clear that the state
ment is as absurd as untrue. In the at
torney generals report of December /. |
1856, he says: There have been filed 10 |
date 2.150 cases, amounting to about |
So, 100000 This was less than seven |
weeks before the time for filing petitions |
weeks 3,419 were filed, and in August, |
1888. two years and seven months after |
the time for fling had expired, the clerk |
of the court certified that no evidence
whatever was filed in 1929 of these Pc /
titions. If anything were needed to |
show that the petitions, filed after the /
attorney generals report, were filed on /
the delusive hope that evidence would /
70 70 no,
found in the facts published last Novem- |
Der that of these petitions some 81 ,0G0.-
600 were dismissed by the claim
be entirely useless. To these,
Of course, must be added the duplicated
petitions, and the further fact must be
considered that the court sits these
cases thoroughly and hears all Of the
petitions on each vessel together, reduc-
ing greatly the estimated value and
both for want of proof and because they
do not come within the express terms Of
the act
In view of these simple and unques-
-ionable facts it does seem that the Dem
ocrats of the committee on appropria-
tons who signed that paper, and those
Democrats who signed the minority re-
port of the judiciary committee pre-
sented by Dir. Rogers, owe it to them
selves to retract their statements and not
leave upon a great political party the
Odium of trying to defeat the payment
IF just claims by unworthy arguments
and Misrepresentation.
The proposition to further delay the
claimants and devolve upon them an adj
jition n their heavy e~raDSa by- cham
ing the order of procedure fixed by con-
h. |