The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1897-08-08

yoars VII tend 10 keep up through the next
nfty, or perhaps hundred years. the same ratio
Of growth which has been thus revealed In our
past pnoRress; and 10 the influence OF these
causes may be added the influx Of laboring
masses from Eastern Asia to the Pacific side Of
our puases1ons. together with the probable 40
cessicn Of the populations already existing In
other parts of our hemisphere, which. within
the period In question, will feel with yearly in
crcasimT force tho natural attraction of 90 vast,
powerful, ana prosperous q confederation or
seltgovbrninR republics and will seek the privt
leGo>of bsing admitted within its safe and happy
bosom. transferring with themselves. by q
peaceful and happy process OF Incorporation.
spacious regions OF virgin and exuberant SOL,
which are destined to swarm with the fast
growing and fnstspreading millions Of our
race. These considerations seem fully 70
Justify the presumption that the law OF
population above stated will continue to act
with undim finished effect through at least the
next half century. and that Thousands OF per
sons who have already arrived at maturity ana
are now exercising tho rights Of frcemen Will
Gloss their ayes on the spectacle Of moro Than
l0O.OOO.OOO of population embraced within the
majestic proportions Of tho American Union. It
10 not merely rs an interesting topic OF spccula'
ton that i present these views for your consid-
GRAFTON. They havo important practical bear
inRs upon all tho political duties we are called
upon TO perform. Heretofore our system OF gov
ernmcnt has worked on what may be termed q
miniature scale in comparison with the develop
mont which It must thus assume within n future
30 near at hand as scarcely to be beyond the
present of the existing generation"
II was during the Pierce Administration that
the Declaration OF Paris was put forth. ono OF
the articles whereof bound the cosiRnatories to
repounce the right OF issuing letters Of marque.
Tho United States were invited to accode 10
this agreement. but refused. Tho reasons
for the refusal are recited beforehand by
the President in his second annual mes
snge. dated Dec. 4. 1854: THE King OF
Prussia proposes an additional article provid-
ing for tho remuneration Of privateering. Such
IN article, for most obvious reasons. is much
desired by nations having naval establishments
large In proportion to their foreign commerce. If
II were adopted MS an international rule the COM
mercc OF n nation having comparatively n small
naval forco would be very much at tho mercy Of
It's enemy In case of war with n power of de-
cidcd naval superiority. The bare statement OF
the condition in which the United Statos would
DO placed, after having surrendered the
right to resort to privateers. in tho event
Of war with n bolligcrent OF naval Hupren-
acy, will show that this Government could never
listen to such II proposition. The navy OF the first
t'eA wv ~ at'p ~ - AaHN't tNti hAA''N' No
large as that OF the United States. The foreign
commerce of tho two countr les 10 nearly equal.
and about equally exposed TO hostile depre,ia.
tons. In war between that power and the United
States. without resort on our part to our MGR
camille marine. tho means of our enemy to in
fict injury upon our would he ten
fold greater than ours to rctaiiate. We could
not extricate our country from this unequal
condition with such m enemy unless we At once
departed from our present peaceful policy and
became n great naval power. Nor would this
country be better situated IN war with one OF
the secondary naval powers. Though tho
naval disparity would be less, the greater
extent and more exposed condition Of
our widespread would give any Of
them q like advantage over us. The PROPOSE
ton TO enter into engagements to forego n re-
sort to privateers in case this country should ne
forced into war with a great naval power Is not
entitled to more favorable consideration than
would DO a proposition to agree not to accept
tho services of volunteers for operations on
land. Whom the honor or the rights of our coun-
try require It to assume u hostile attitude. 1t
confidently relics upon the patriotism of its citi-
IONS not ordinarily devoted to tho military
profession. to augment tho army and tho
navy 30 AZ to mako them fully adequate
to the emergency which calls them into
action. The proposal to surrender the right to
employ privateers is professedly founded on the
principle that private property OF unofending
non-combatants, though enemies. should be
exempt from the ravages OF war: but the pro-
posed surrender goes but little way in carrying
out that principle, which equally requires that
such private property should not be seized or
molested by national ships OF war. Should the
leading powers OF Europe concur In proposing
as . rule OF international law to exempt private
nronarfv m tho ncaap frnrp snizyre nv p,,hlic
armed cruisers as well as by privateers, the
United States will readily meet them upon that
broad ground"
In q message sent to the House of Representa-
tives on Feb. II. 1855, Mr.. Pierce gave. at great
length. his reasons for vetoing a bill providing
for the ascGrtainment OF claims OF American
citizens tor spoliations committed by the French
prior to July 81. 1901" and appropriating So
900, 900 for the liquidation OF such claims. AS
tho payment OF these claims is still mooted from
time to time, II may DO well to recall the con-
illusions at which the President arrived. after a
careful examination Of all the treaties bearing
on tho subject: "First-Ncither the second
article of the convention of 1900. as 1t origin.
ally stood. nor tho retrenchment of that article,
nor tho proviso In the ratification by the First
Consul. nor tho action OF the Senate Of tho
United States thereon. was regarded by either
France or the United States as the renounce-
ment of any claims OF American citizens against
France. Second-On the contrary. in the treaties
OF 1903, the two Governments took up the ques,
ton precisely where IL was left on the day of
the signature of that of 1900, without sugges.
tion on the part of France that tho claims OF our
citizens wero excluded by tho retrenchment OF
the second article or tho no.e Of tho First Con-
sui. and proceeded to make ample provision for
such as France could DO induced to admit were
Justly due, and they were accordingly dis
charged In full, with interest, by the United
States, in the stead and behalfo Of France. Third
The United States. not having admitted in the
convention OF 1900 that they wero under any
obligations to France by reason OF tho abroga-
ton of the treaties Of 1878 and 1888, persevered
In this view OF the question by tho tenor OF tho
treaties of 1903. and. therefore. had no such
national obligation to discharge. and did not,
either In purpose or In fact, at any time
undertake to discharge themselves from any
such obligation at tho expense and with the
property of individual citizens OF the United