Cheraw gazette. [volume] (Cheraw, S.C.) 1835-1838, February 09, 1836, Image 1
. I
- , : ' ' V^v
CHER AW GAZETTE.
" m.maclea* editor & proprietor. CIIERAW, S. C? TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 1836 vqli wo.u. j
Published ovcry Tuesday.
TERMS.
If paid within three months, . - - 3. 00
If paid withinthrco months after the close
of the year, -------- 3. 50
If not paid within that time, . - - - 4. 00
A company of sir persons taking tiic paper at
the same Post Office, shall be entitled to it at ?15,
paid in advance, and a company of ten persons
at ?20 ; provided the names be forwarded together,
accompanied by the money.
No paper to be discontinued but at the option
of the Editor till arrearages are paid.
Advertisements inserted for 75 cents j>er square
the first time, and 37$ for each subsequent insertion.
Deductions made to those who advertise
by the year, and to merchants.
Persons sending id advertisements arc requested
to specify the number of times they are to be
inserted t otherwise thev will be continued till
ordered out. and charged* accordingly.
(LTTho Postage must be paid on all communications
sent by mail.
KCHVr UI lut- uunc W MM A vpi.v
to IV. Pafeot*
Late V. S. Charge 8? Affaires 6/ France at
Washington.
Paris, 17th June, .1835.
Sir :
There no longer exists on our part any
obstacle to the entire accomplishment of
the treaty concluded on the 4th of July,
1831, between France and the U. States.
The project of law relative to the indemnities
reciprocally stipulated in that treaty,
after having successively passed the two
Chambers, has received the royal sanction.
I say on our part; for every thing now
depends on the Government of the United
States; it belongs to them to remove the
only abstacle that still subsists.
By virtue of a clause inserted in Art. 1st,
bv the Chamber of Deputies, the French
~y *
Government must defer making the payments
agreed upon, until that of the United
States shall have explained the true meaning
and real purport of divers passages inserted
by the President of the Union in his mes.
sage, at the opening of the last session in
Congress, and at which all France at the
first aspect was justly offended.
The Government having discovered no.
thing in that clause at variance with its own
sentiments, or the colfcse which it hod intended
to pursue, the project of law, thus
amended on the 18th of April by the Chamber
of Deputies, was carried on the 27th to
tl?e Chamber of Peers. I herewith annex
the expose which accompanied it. That
document will show you, in a few words, in
what light we consider the respective positions
of the two countries. I also annex
the report of the committee presented to the
Chamber of Peers, on the 3th of June.
You will thereby sec how far that House
concured in the opinion of the Chamber of
Deputies.
Mr. Livingston has left Paris, without
waiting for the vote of the Chamber of I
PeiTF, leavi ig Mr.JBarton as Charg- s d'Af.
faires. The letter by which he accredited
}?m to the French Government, is of the
28th of April. You will find a copy of it
subjoinod.
In a note dated 27th, Mr. Livingston assigns
as the cause of his departure, the silence
observed by the French government
in relation to a previous note of the 18th,
in which that Minister, agreeably to orders
from his government, demanded the erplan/tiinn
ef an expression made use of by Mr.
Serrurier in a note Ik? passed to Mr. Forjsyth
at the time lie left. That explanation,
sir, we will show ourselves very willing to
furnish, if it should be asked for again, when
we ourselves shall have received those which
we have a right to expect.
Annexed are copies of the two notes of
the 18th and 27th.
On the 25th, Mr. Livingston had addresscd
to me a third note of great length, in
which, whilst he forbears making allusion
to the amendment introduced by the Chamber
of Deputies, he fully enters into its principle
and probable consequences, as you
may ascertain by reading that paper. As
long as the amendment was but a simple
project, the iniative of wluch did not even
oclong to the Government, I thought proper
abstain from entering into any controversy
on this subject with the Minister of a Foreign
Government. Now that the project
has becorwe a law by the concurrence of
the two Chambers, and the sanction of the
King, it is my duty to justify it against ohjections
which are utterly grondless.
I shall first recall a few facts.
The project ot law relative to tiro execution
ef the Treaty signed on the 4th of July
1832, had been presented three times to
the Chamber of Deputies, viz. the Gth of
April, 1833; the 11th of June of the same |
year; and the 13th of January of the year
following, when it was rejected by a majority
of 8 votes on the 1st of April 1834.
" The news of its rejection was known at
Washington on the 6th of May, through a
packet which sailed from Liverpool on the
6th of April.
On the 4th of June, Mr. Serrurier informed
the Secretary of State, that the King's
Government had determined to present anew
the project of law at the next session
of the Chambers. The loss of the bill having
occasioned the resignation of the Min.
ister who had signed it, and this circumstance
having caused different changes in
the Cabinet, the Government could not definitively
adopt that determination until the
8th of April. The brig Le Cuirassier, bearer
of new instructions to Mr. Serrurier, had
moreover met with a long and stormy passage.
At the express request of Mr. McLane,
then Secretary of State, Mr. Serrurier communicated,
the next day, in writing, the declaration
which he had already made verbally.
His note is dated the 5tli of June.
The reply of Mr. McLanc is of the 27th.
In this reply, Mr. McLane states in express
terms in the name of his (lover.unciit, that
the President of the United States mil rely
on the assurances Mr. Scrrurier lias been
instructed to give him, and will wait hereof ter
with confiience for the oppeal that is to be
made to the new Chamber.
Mr. Scrrurier, in his note of tiie 5th of
June, had iucidontly observed that it was
the intention of the French Government to
present again theyrejectcd law at as early period
as our Constitution would permit. That I
intention was real { our desire was sincere; |
but it naturally followed from the very nature
and terms of the engagement, that it
referred to no particular and fixed period that
was left dependent eithcrgupon the different
exegiencies of our internal situation, or upon
the subject which both governments
were equally anxious te attain.
In the month of August, the Chambers
were assembled, but merely for form, and
for the ?olc purpose of complying with the
provisions of the 42d article of the Charter
No project of law was either presented
or discussed.
Mr. Livingston at Paris, and the President
of the United States at Washington,
having seemed to regret that the oppornuty
of this accidental meeting had not been
embraced to place again before the Chambers
the project of law relative to the Treaty
of the 4th of July, it was easy to make
them understand, that in acting with that
? t . i i _
precipitancy, we would not oniv nave departed
from all established usages, but compromitted,
instead of securing the passage
of the law.
The same considerations were very naturally
opposed to the request made at the
subsequent period by Mr. Livingston, for
a special session in the Fall. That Minister
must no doubt have urged them with
his government, since the latter showed
itself entirely convinced of their validity and
justness.
The new Secretary of State, Mr. Forsyth,
said in the month of October to Mr.
Serrurier, " The President readily understands
why this business has not beeen taken
up at the opening of the session in AutiAin
o/vtAiint (nr flip liipf flint
f ills tuki nun uuvA/utiv tvi mv auw m?w?
tiic demand made by Mr. Livingston of a
special session in the Fall was declined.
Mr. Forsyth it is true, added tat the President
could not understand why the convoca
tion ol the Chambers had been delayed
until the last days of December, instead of
the beginning of that month. But that observation
falls before the fact, that by a cot currence
of particular circumstances on
which it would be useless to dwell, this meeting
of the Chambers did in reality take
place on the first of December.
Nothing consequently could prepare the
French government for the language of the
message sent by the President to Congres.
Wc were aware that that message wonld
contain a statement of the transactions connected
with tho treaty of tho 4th of July.
Mr. Forvyth had on the 19th of November,
given notice of it to Mr. Serrurier.?
But Mr. Forsyth had at the same time in.
if -I .. .1-_ r? :j .
formed tnat aiinisicr, mui me i rjsiut-m
would simply advise Congress to wait for
the decisicn of the Chambers.
What must then have been our astonish,
mcnt when the message reached this side
of the Atlantic ? And could it be expected
thattlic French Government after having
fulfilled the double duty of satisfying its
dignity by recalling its minister from Washinton,
and of redeeming the faith of treaties,
by obtaining from the Chambers the appropriation
necessary to the completion of
, of the convention of the 4th of July ; after
having tendered the minister of the United
! States his pasports; could it be expected, I
! repeat, that the French government would
| not wait, before it resumed any communication
on the subject with the government of
the Union ; and l>efore it renewed with it
the interrupted relations,that the letter would
come forward and express itself in terms
calculated to dispel the the unfortunate interpretations
to which the message had gi
ven rise?
| Such is in fact and in substance the course
i which the amendment introduced, by the
Chamber of Deputies has pointed out to the
government; such is the course which the
government intended to have pursued, even
if the law had not made it their duty.
Mr. Livingstonfulhj admits in his note of
the 4 tk of April, the right of foreign govmiments
to take proper exception to the acts
and language of the government tchich he
represents.
Should the President, " lie observes," do
an official Executive act, atlecting a Foreign
Power, or, use exceptionable language in
11 _ .1 1. i.:?
addressing n, uiruugu ms iuuhmu) ui uuu
theirs : should a law l?e passed injurious to
the dignity of another nation; in all these,
and other similar cases, a demand for explanation
would be respectfully received*
and answered in the manner that justice,
and a regard to the dignity of the complaining
nation would require."
But he maintains that these principles,
the wisdom of which is evident, are not applicable
to an act by which the President,
sole representative of the nation towards
foreign powers, gives to Congress an account
cf the situation of foreign relations.
" The utmost freedom," says Mr. Livingston,?"
the utmost freedom from all restraint
in the details into which he is obliged
to enter, of international concerns, and of
the measures in relation to them, is essential
to the projicr performance of this important
part of his functions. lie must exercise
them without having continually before him
the fear of offending the susceptibility of
the powers whose conduct he is obliged to
notice.
"Were any foreign powers, continues
Mr. Livingston, " permitted to scan the
communications of the Executive, the:r
complaints, whether real or affected, would
would involve the county in continual cot trover&ies;
for the right being admitted, it
would be a duty to exercise it. by demandi
ing a disavowal of every phrase they aright t
deem offensive, and an explanation of every 1:
word to which an improper interpretation c
could be given. The principle, therefore, c
has been adopted, that no foreign power
has a right to ask for explanations of any t
thing that the President, in the exercise of s
his functions, thinks proper to eommuni- e
cate to Congress, or of any course he may e
advise them to pursue." tl
We cannot, sir, admit such principles; d
we cannot admit it at least without condi- c
tion or limit, in an absolute, general, and
peremptory sense. c
It does not depend upon a nation from ii
the mere fact of its having adopted such, or c
such a form of government,- to acquire with s
regard to foreign powers, more lights than tl
it would have had, or to arrogate to itself t!
other rights than those which it would have a
enjoyed under any other form of govern- c
ment. f
Nations are free to chsose, without any g
constraint, the government, they please? F
precisely for this reason,and under this con- *
dition, that such a choice concerns them ex- t
clusively, and that whatever that choice may t
bo, it cannot affect the rights or injure the c
legitimate interests of other nations. i
Now it is the acknowledged right of e- ?
very Government, when the legal represen- c
tative, or when the official organ of another
government, expresses lwmself publicly c
in reference to it, in language which is deem- c
ed offensive, to demand an explanation of (
it. Sucli a right the Constitution of the U. s
States can neither abolish, modify ?r res- v
' ' * *- 1 /...iluitin r
incr. u is an iiucniauuuui n^iu ^uuuiumw v
tcrnational.)-It suits the people of the Uuited c
States to divide the power of the Union be- t
tween a President and a Congress. J3e it c
so. It suits them to oblige the President t
to give publicly, to Congress, an account d
of the state of foregn relations. Their t
right is unquestionable. But that the Pre- r
sident of the United States, the official or- I
gan, the legal representative of the Union 1
towards foreign nations, thereby acquires r
right to express himself, publicly, of for- t
eign governments in language offensive to t
those governments ; that he should, in as- s
serting the liberty, the freedom necessary r
for such communications, dispense with all a
reserve in his language, and with all respon- s
sibility towards the powers whom that Ian- }
guage concerns, is what we cannot ad- c
mit. ii
Irresponsibility (Tinviolabilitie) whether t
it relates to persons, to acts, or to worus,
irresponsibility, when it is legally estalished, c
is a pure national institution, a purely internal
regulation, and can never be used as an t
argument in the intercourse which govern- 't
mqnts hold with each other. If it were o- t
therwise, and we were disposed, after the c
example of Mr. Livingston, to carry the C
argument to its extreme consequences, it ' s
might bemaintaincJ t at tie Pr3siJei.t of the c
United States has the right, provided it be f
in a message to Congress, to impute publicly,
to foreign governments and to foreign t
nations the most odious acts ; the most per. t
ve.se intentions; to hold them up publicly a
to the animadversion of the world, without v
these governments or these nations having s
the right to manifest the slightest resent- r
ment, since, according to this very strange v
doctrine, they would not even be allowed a
to take official notice of it. ii
To state such a doctrine, is to refute it. a
However, sir, we do not wish to exagerate
any thing, Mr. Livingston is perfectly t
right, when he says that the cause is, in a i
general sense, common to all free countries:
That all governments founded on tne ciivi- c
sion of power and on the publicity of de- d
bates, have an interest in repelling, on the
part of foreign powers, any interference J
with the communications which the Prince (
and his ministers in constitutional monar- c
chies, and in repuclics the magistrates entrusted
with executive power, are called up- t
on tohnake to the Legislature. And this is I
j the reason, as Mr. Livingston very judi. ii
ciously observes, fhat in France and in En- i
gland, the language of the royal speeches \
is so reserved in every thing that concerns v
Foreign relations: and it is this same mo- t
tivc, as you will observe, sir, to the cabinet c
' of Washington, that has directed the con- c
duct of France in relation to the message of c
President Jackson.?If the expression con- <
tained in that message had been inserted in e
a proclamation, or any other act of the ex- s
ecutivc power of the Union, we would at c
once have called for an explanation. Out i
of rcsoect for the very nature of the act, t
1 ?
the French Government deemed it a duty
to manifest the sentiments it felt on that occasion,
by instantly recalling its minister,
and stating in a communication the motives
for that recall; but it did not ask for explanations
; it was contentdd to expect them
from the justiee of the government of the
United States , and from the ancient friendship
of the American nation, not doubting
that the Government of the United States
would appreciate the difference in such cases,
between answering and an interpellation,
and preventing by a spontaneous determination,
by explanations readily ofTered,
a misunderstanding always to be regretted.
The amendment of the Chamber of Deputies
is conceived in the same, spirit of reserve
and conciliation. It docs not make
it the duty of the French government to
ask for explanations; it merely supposes
they will receive them,
we were not mistaken, sir, in believing that
the government of the United States would
appreciate that difference, since Mr. Liviugston,
as he himself observes, hastened as
early as the 20th of January last, when the
1 message of President Jackson had been on!
ly known a few days, to offer us cxplanai
tious at great length, of every, passage of
that message which treated of the relations .
between the United States and France; and
since, that step and the explanations con'
1
<
ained in his note of the 29th of January it
lave received, as he informs us by his note tl
>f the 2j3th of April, the entire approbation s<
if the President. a
Mr. Livingston was not astonished that p;
hose explanations as long as they were pre- tl
ented only upon his personal responsibilty, is
lid not produce upon us the effect he intend, a
d; but he supposes that being now clo- a
hed with the approbation of the Presi- t(
lent, they must satisfy all that the iiiest
sense of national honor could desire. is
He therefore maks it a point in his note
if the 25th, to report and to dcvelope them
n the hope that the French* government by v
examining them anew, under the impres- tl
ion that they had become the expression of tl
lie sentiments of the President, would deem tl
hem sufficient. He is so much the more p
inxious to impart to us his own conviction P
in this subject, as he deems it impossible t(
or the government of the United States to n
;o any further. lie even seems to be ap- h
irehensive that future events which he need g
lot specify, designating thereby, no doubt, b
he adoption of the amendment "of the Cham- it
>er of Deputies by the other two branches s
>f the government may hereafter render h
mproper any allusion to explanations pre- t(
;ented under the influence of different cir- s
:umstances. c
We sincerely wish, sir, not to add to the
lifficulties of the situation in which the two
lountries are respectively placed. The I
jucstion of date, to which Mr. Livingston o
;eems, in this Case, to attach an importance 1)
vliich it belongs not to us to appreciate,
Iocs not in any way alter either the nature o
>r extent of the duties which are prescribed d
o us. If satisfaction had really been giv- ! b
n to thejust susceptibility of the French na- ! 2
ion as early as the 29th of January, (the ti
late of Mr. Livtngston's first note,) and c
herfore previous to the adoption of the a- o
nendinent under consideration by the Cham- p
?er of Deputies, or as early as the 27th of fi
Vpril, (the date of Mr. Livingston's 2nd o
iote,) that is to say, befo^ the adoption of P
his- same amendment by the other two jt
tranches of the L gislature, we would be ti
incerely gratified. The more the govern- tl
nent of the United States would have shown c
: willingness to explain itself the more we n
hould be ourselves disposed to find the ex- "
flanatious satisfactory, and to view the soli- o
:itude of that government as a testimony p
n favor of the intentions which had dicta- is
ed the message of the President. a
We will simply observe before we pro- if
:eed: ^
First, That even supposing the cxplana- v
ions, given by the note of the 29th January, n
o have been such as we might have wished p
hem, they were on the 18th of April, the p
lay of the passage of the amendment in the ?
Chamber of Deputies, nothing more than the F
rkfth** novcnnnl sentiments S
Ill J|/|Vs V-Aj/1 OOOIVII V*
>f Mr. Livingston. This is an observation t<
hat did not escape his notice. g
We will also observe that by thepublica- w
ion of Mr. Livingston's correspondence,the d
he Government of the XJ, S. had excited
igainst him such a feeling of irritation that C
t would have been out of our power, even d
upposing that we had considered that cor- a
espondence as containing nothing but what t<
ras right and proper, to avail onrselvcs of ?
I document bearing his signature, to repel v
II one or the other of the Chambers the b
imendment under consideration. P
I will now proceed to the examination of p1
he explanations which have been offered to k
is." r<
Mr. Livingston is right in thinking that
>ur objections to the message of the Prcsi- o
lent are confined to these two points, *
1st, The message impeaches the good F
aith of his Majesty's Government, a
2d, It contains a threat to secure the exe- ir
;ution of the treaty by the fear of reprisals, o
It is indeed under this point of view that C
he message of President Jackson excited in e
?rance the greatest indignation. The Cab- I
?. .ri\r?L:?i? ?.:n ?j;I? h
IIUI Ol *? usiiuigiuii ?ill itauu^ auiiii1. mai ?
f the allegation were true, the indignation
vould be just. No government, no people, o
vould for one moment bear itself either to I
he direct or indirect imputation of a want S
>f good faith, to the idea of another Gov. n
xnment or another people endeavoring to tl
>btain from it through rtibnace, what would C
>nly be granted by it to justice. It must ii
jqually be admitted that when the impres- t]
;ion produced by the appearance of any < tl
locumcnt is gt-neral; when the impression f
s felt, not only by the whole nation whom e
he document concerns, but even by foreign- t<
jrs, by uninterested people, by persons the d
east disposed to take a part in the contest, v
he very universality of that impression is a p
sufficient evidence against the general tenor n
>f the document. s
If we examine in detail the- message of ii
he President of the'Unitcd States, (I mean f
hat part of it which relates to the relations c
>etween the United States and France,) it ii
vill possibly be found that passing succes- ti
uvely from phrase to phrase, none will be h
net with that cannot bear an interpretation s
norc or Jess plausible; none of which* o
itrictly speaking, eannot be said that it is a tl
simple expose of such or such a fatt true in tl
fself, or the assertion of such or such a right 1<
vhich no one contests, or the performance s
)f such or such an obligation imposed on b
he President by the very nature of his func- a
ions. There will certainly be found several it
n which the idea of impeaching the good s
aith'of the French Government, or of act- n
ng upon it through menace or intimidation, c
s more or less disavowed. a
Yet when the whole succession of facts
s taken into view; when we perceive the s
:arc which seems to have been taken to pre- d
sent them in an unfavorable light, without
naking allowance for circumstances which
Jxplained them, without paying any regard j
o considerations which the government of I
he United States itself had previously ad- ; c
mitted : when we see at the end of this im-1 Ii
iterrupted scries of allegations, which have Al
le appearance of wrongs, for the sole rea3n
that they are made to rest on isolated _
nd incomplete statements, the unexpected
reposition, the extreme proposition to say
le least, to seize upon French property, it
i impossible at first view, it is even difficult
fter reflection, to escape the thought that so
11 this part of tftfe message had been writ- Gf
211 for the double purpose stated above. je
It is not so, however; at least we hope it
i not.
But to banish entirely such an idea, what jni
'ouM benec(?ssary? Nothing but what is tb
erysinfple. We do not here contend abdut ig
lis or that phrase, this or that allegation, tfo
lis or that expression; we contend about pr
le intention itself/which has dictated that St
art of the message. If it be true that the jii
'resident of the United States, in presenting op
> Congress a statement of the facts con- .
ected with the Treaty of the 4t1i df July, cc
ad no intention to cast any doubt on the bj
ood faith of the French government; if it
e true that the President of the United States la
1 proposing to Congress to decrece the 0l
L'izure by force of arms of French property,
ad not the intention to assume with regard
> France a menacing attitude, we cannot m
ee how hfc could find any difficulty in de
laring it. l"
Is such a declaration really contained* in w
fr. Livingston's note, addressed to the ?
'rench go\ ernment on the 29th of January,
r in that which the same Minister left at jM
is departure on (lie 27th of April?
We would be equally at a loss to affirm
r to deny it;?and for this reason it is evi- ^
cut that neither the one nor the other can ^
e considered su/icicTit. The note of the j)
9th of January is intended to discuss, con- C?
adictorily with the French government the re
orrectness of facts asserted in the message cc
f President Jackson. It is intended to tj1
rove that the view taken by him of these sj,
icts is at least plausible. It is in the midst yj
f this bug disquisition that two or three ^
hrases are incidentally thrown out, on the jn
ist confidence which the government of cc
le United States has always entertained in ^
le sincerity of the Frencli government;
onfidence which Mf, Lividgston always ^
lade it a duty to fosteiy and which, accord- jn
)g to him, is not in contradiction with any cc
f the ideas or allegations expressed1 in the jj
lessage. The note of the 25th of April,
; chiefly intended to make an indirect and
nticipated examination of the amendment
Produced by the Chamber of Deputies. ^
Vhile upon this examination, and with a tj(
idw to prove that any demand for eXpla- g(
ations would in futur* be useless in fact, m
nd inadmissable in* principle. Mr. Li v.
lgston refers to the testimony given by him ^
1 his first note, to the good faith 61 the ^
'rench government; he refers to subsequent rc
anction given by the President to the con?nts
of that note; he dwells on the para- sj(
raph of the message of the President, in
-hich all idea of threat is, he says, expressly
isa vowed. . .
You will easily conceive, Sir, and the
'abinct of Washington will, we think, un- ^
erstand it also, that such phrases incident. ".c
Hy inserted in documents, the purport and
mor of which are polemical, and surround- or
d, in some measure, by details of a controersy
which is besides not always free from
itterness, cannot dispel sufficiently the im. su
ression produced by tlk perusal of the mes- or
ige, nor strike the mind as would the same ^
lea expressed in terms simple, positive, di. or
?ct, and unaccompanied by any rccrimina. . .
ans concerning facts or incidents no fonger t!(fany
importance. Such is the motive, t,(
hich, among many others, has placed the
'renbh Government in the rnipossifclfify of y
ccedmg to the wish expressed by Mr. Liv- ,a
lgston tow ards the coriblusioti of his note hc
f the 25th of April, by declaring (to the
lhambcr of Pee rsprobably,) that previous
xplanations given by the Minister dtf the
Jnited States, and subsequently approved a
y the President, had satisfied it. Pr
The impression produced by the perusal ( .
f the message' was deep. It was so in P1
ranee, in Europo, and even in tnc United ^
States; the debates in Congress, and public
otoriety sufficiently prove the fact. Under nl
tie weight of this impression, the French
jrovernmeat did not hesitate to place itself s,!
i a situation to meet the engagement con- ai
racted in the name of France. In pausing ?'
here for the present, and waiting for the rc
ulfilment of those engagements to be claimd,
or expecting them to he claimed, in
urms consistent with the regard which is its rc
!ue, it is not afraid to be accused,nor France,
- . _ , _ r al
irhicn it represents, 01 oeing accused 01 ay- ?
re dating national honor by any number of
tillions ichich it could withhold, as a compen- th
ation for an injury offered to it. Mr. Liv- in
igston is the first to repel such an idea. c<
ar froriT it, the French Government will w
onsider as a fortunate day, the one in which
: will be able to deliver up honorably the a!
its/ that lies in its hands; but each State B
as duties to perforin towards itself) each pr
ituation has its exigencies. Mr. Livingston p'J
bjects to the idea of seeing the President of cc
ic United States give a new testimony to gr
ic good faith of the French Government, di
jst such a step, reasonable and just in itself, y<
hould not appear to be exclusively dictated pr
y justice and by reason. lie will not be b<
stonished if the French Government, on to
s side, attaches an equal importance to cd
how that an acknowledging openly a Jcgiti- m
itcte debt, and declaring itself ready to dis- H
harge it, it has exclusively consulted reason C<
nd justice. te
You are authorized, sir, to read the pre- te,
ent despatch to Mr. Forsyth, and if he w
esires, let him take a copy of it. it
Accept, Sir, &c. &c. &c.
(Signed) V. BROGLIE. gi
? _ tu
Scest thou the man wise in his own cou- pr
cit; there is more hope of a fool tlian of cc
iim. of
I
(Hitract of the Proceedings of the
Tweittffoarth Congress. First Set"
Nlou.
ix slxate.
January' 25.
The Chair presented a report from tl.e M
scretary of the Treason*, in reply to a relution
of the Senate, calling for the amount Jtjj
' public lands disposed of, which was orred
to be printed.
Mr. Linn offered the following resolution:
Resolved, That tlic Secretary df War
form the Senate whether, in- his opinion,
e present military force of the United States
sufficient to garrison the fortifications on
e seaboard, and at the same time give
otcctiou to the inhabitants residing in the
ates and Territories bordering Otrtho loan
frontier. If not, what force will, in his
inion, be necessary to such proteotibn.
On motion of Mr. VV liite, the Senate pro.
eded to consider the resolutions introduced
r Mr. Benton.
Mr. Southard addressed the Senate at
[igth, until half past 3 o'clock, when withit
concluding, lie yielded die Doer.
January 26.
The chair laid before tlie Senate, a meorial
from'thfe Senate and House of Recsentatives
of the State of Michigan.
Objections were made to receiving tlie
U . U/w>^i LI-'.../ln/tL?c TlntAn
.'lUIUUf uy MC3313I I '.OllUI Xljfwu)
g,'and Calhoun, or. the ground that the peion
purported tO'comefijom a body which
id no existence, the Staie of Michigan,
was ailed god that to receive the petition,
ouki be tantamount to recognizing the
aim of the Territory to the rights apperiding
to membership in thfe UniOft.' Mr.
avis of Massachusetts, contended that reliving
the petition, could no more .affect the
lation of the territory to the Ihaion, to relive
the memorial than it would determine
e ownership of a ship, that a petitioner
lould j>etitioii Congress As its owner.?
lotions were made to lay it on the'ttable,
id not to receive it, but they were decided
the negative. My. Clayton moved1 to reive
and refer it to the Commit 63S- on the
(mission of Michigan into the Union,
Ltli a condition similar to that annexed by
ie House of Representatives upon leceiv.
g the same memorial, that is received as
>ming from private individuals. "The contion
was struck out, on motion of Mr.
ugglcs, by a vote of 12 to 30; and the
otion to recieve and refer was agreed to.
Mr. Benton's resolutions to appropriate
e surplus revenue to* the purposes of na>nal
defence were next taken up, and Mr.
Milliard resumed and finished his rcaricsi
The resolutions, and also the subject of
e memorial from Philadelphia for the aboion
of slavery were postponed till to-morw.
Tfce Senate then proceeded to the conleration
of executive business.
January $7.
A Kill fmm (lift FT/mica rtf RmrMPntn.
res, received this morning, making'ao adtional
appropriationdor the suppre&ion of
utilities with -the Seminole Indiata, was
ad twice, and referred to the Committee
l Finance.
Mr. Knight, from the Committee on manacturcs,
to which had been referred the
bject, reported a bi]F to repeal the duties
1 certain imported articles, and'to* reduce
e duties on others; which was read, and
tiered to a second* reading.*
Mr. Benton offered the following resoluhi;
which lies- one day for considers>i?:
Resolved, That the Committee for the
istrict of Columbia be instructed-to inquire
to the expediency of abolishing lottery
:kets within this' District.
Mr. E wing, fornv the Committe on Pub:
Lands, reported a bill to appropriate, for
limited time, Mn, with amendments, and
special report; which* Was ordered to be
inted.
On motion of Mr. Clay, tyOOO extra coes
of the report were ordered to be print1
Mr. Webster frdm theCommittee on Fi.
incc, reported without amendment, a bill
aking further appropriation for suppresng
hostilities with the Seminole Indians,
id asked for the immediate consideration
'the bill, as the state of the country requid
its passage with the utmostdespatch.
The bill [appropriating $500,000] was tain
up for consideration, and ordered to its
ading. .
Mr. Webster asked for the third reading
I this time.
Mr. Clay said lie should be glad to hear
e communicatiohs from the Deputies read,
order to see whether they gave any ac>unt
of the causes of this war. No doubt
hatcver may liave been tlje cause, it was
?cessaiy to'put an end to the war itself by
I the possible means within our power.?
ut it was a condition, altogether without
ecedent, in which the countiy- was now
iced. A war was raging with the most rar*
irous violence within our borders; Coness
had been in session nearly 2 months,
iring which time this conflict was raging;
;t of the causes of the war, bow it was
oduced, if the fault was on onq side or on)th
sides, in short, what had lighted up the
rch, Congress was altogether uninforat?!,
and no inquiry on the subject had been
adc by either branch of the Legislature,
e should be glad if the chairman of the
Dmmiitee on Finance, or of the Commit-3
on Indian Affairs or any eno dse, would
II him how this war had buret forth, what
ere its cause, and to whom the blame of
was to be charged.
Mr. Webster replied that he could not
vc any answer to the Senator from Kencky.
It was as much a matter of suriseto
1 iiill, as to any one, that r.o official
mi muni cation had bven tn;*dc.to Congress*
* the war**
\