The daily critic., 1890-09-12
FRENCH CLAIMS
THE EFFORT TO OBTAIN AN APPR0.
PRIATlON TO PAY THEM.
How the Snoliatton Claims Rave
Dragged for Nearly Century.
ana Arc LIKELY 70 re
Settled
$4,000. c.tl.o.In.. VI. - -.

ana Arc Likely 10 BE
Settled
Ua15g,Cs C0rav0r70ce N,55 TssE SIN.
ltis not surprising that Representa-.
tive CoFeswcl has been exertinr him.
self TO procure concurrence in the Sen.
ate's amendment to the General
Deficiency bill, providing for the pav.
meut Of the French spoliation clai ne.
His constituents on Cape Ann are
largely concerned in them, aud. In.
deed it is now the descendants of the
original claimants who are urging the
settlement For earlier generations, az
least the case must have been one Of
The hope deferred that mlkcih the
heart sick. Ninety years have pissed
since the claims accrued, and m0r' fNln
eighty since they were brought before
Congress. The interval till now has
been passed IN endeavoring TO secure
the titectual attention Of the Govern
ment, a judicial determination Of their
relative merits, and an appropriation
for paying them. II Is this last stage
In which they have been laboring
during the present session.
They have run an extraordinary
gauntlet Of mischauces During the
last sixty years nearly fifty reports have
been made upon them in Congress, and
nearly every one has been favorable.
They have received the sanction, first
and last, of the Legislatures Of all the
thirteen original States. A bill 10 pay
them has sometimes passed the Senate
and sometimes the House, but. with a
curious fatality, no such bill, until re.
Gently, passed both branches, except on
two occasions, when Il happened that
the Presidents then In power were op.
posed 10 1t. and In both instances Il was
killed with a veto. A few years ago the
friends Of the measure hit upon a new
policy, which was that of referring the
cases to the Court of Claims for a report
upon them. The report was not to be
binding upon Congress, but only al
visory, and Il remains necessary to pro
cure the consent Of Congress TO settle
them.
The claims rest upon the theory that
the Government In paying them will
only make compensation for q valuable
diplomatic use TO which Il put them
They were claims for unlawful deteu
lions, captures and confscations Of
American vessels by French cruisers
acting under the orders Of the Directory
10 l19S and 1900 during the hostilities
Of France with England The reply Of
France TO our demands for indemnity on
this score was that the United States
had, on Its pant, violated the treaty Of
alliance and the treaty Of amity AMI
commerce made with her IN 1175. Ia
those treaties the Unitel States had
guaranteed 10 France her then existing
possessions Ia America, and had a1rsed
10 protect French vessels aud otherwise
to aid France should she become IN.
volvld In a war with England.
Twenty years later. war between
France ard England having broken
out, the United States refused % be
bound by those treaties, aud eventually
annulled them. So long rs France IN.
sisted that the treaty of 117S was silll
binding, not only would she refuse 20
consider the spoliatiou claims presented
by American citizens through their
Government, but she accused the United
States OF violating national obligations
The upshot was the convention OF July
81, 1901, IN which both parties withdrew
tleir claims France formally released
cur country from the embarrassing obli
cations created by the treaty OF 171S,
while the United States released France
from any obligation TO indemnify Amerl.
can citizens for the loss of voyages
through her action or the seizure of
vessels and caTgoes.
Put In this form there Is a good aTgu-
ment for the spoliation claims as a
whole, setting aside questions as 10 the
Intrinsic merits Of individual claims and
as TO the amount Of liability which 10
any event France would have been
likely TO admit As 10 that matter, Il Is
habilusl 10 claim a great deal more
than Is awarded But so far as the
principle Is concerned, there seems to
have been a sacrifice of these Individual
claims by the Government for its own
benefit. II took them In trust for pre-
sentatlOn 10 France, and during the ne
gotiations for that purpose found itself
involved In troublesome cOunterclaims,
from which II procured a release by
abandoning the claims Of fits own cld-
zens. And the question Is not materially
altered by alleging that the claims of
France were pTepOsterous, and that
she could not fairly hold the United
States 10 perpetual obligations under the
treaty Of l77s.
The real point is that a sense Of IN
gratitude, however unreasonable, enter
tanned by our ancient ally, to whom the
country owed so much, was something
that needed 10 be removed, If possible
even al large price. The unlawful
acts Of the French war vessels. which
may have had their origin IN this feel
ing of American ingTaulude, furnished
an opportunity for mutual concessions,
hich was accepted Our Government
may or may not have been guilty of any
breach Of faith the spOliation claims
may or may not have been recoverable
against the French Government: but
they were certainly used 10 purchase
something Of great value, namely, the
extinction Of French bitterness toward
us, and the abandonment Of the com
pact which might have caused the re-
Yival Of that bitterness IN future years.
such grounds for allowing the spoil
alton claims have appeared satisfactory
10 eminent statesmen and lawyers ike
Webster, Clay. Caleb Gushing and Ru-
fus ChOate, Even when opposition has
been made, Il has largely been based on
grounds not connected With the nTlnCi
pie Of the claims, such, for example. as
that they do not involve individual
hardship, being mostly held by marine
insurance companies OF b. the assiguees
Of persons who purchased them years
ago for a uihing SUN on speculation.
Giving ais sister Away.