13 <■ of foreign productions, and of diminishing that of our own—with a Constitution little more than four years old, in a state of probation, and not exempt from foes.” No greater calamity than wrar could then have fallen upon the United States, nor could war, in any other case, ever come in a iform so fearful. It was not a fault of Washington, as it was of Cato, not to see that public affairs were incapable of perfection, and that States could not be governed without submitting lesser interests to greater. On the contrary, the measure of his duty was that of Cicero in the consulship—to take care that the Republic should suffer no detriment. Well and wisely did he perform that duty. He could not aid. France, but he . saved his own country. Forever, then, let the justice and the wisdom of ^Washington, fn that memorable crisis, stand vindicated and established. But what does all this prove ? Just this, and no more : That circum- *Stances, affecting France and the United States equally, unforeseen and imperious, prevented the United States from even undertaking to perform their compact with France, in the way stipulated in a particular emergency. But the circumstances creating this impossibility were not alone the fault or misfortune of France, but arose in part out of their own condition; and the omission to perform it assured the safety and promoted the welfare of the United States. Under such circumstances, the United States owed to France, if not indemnities for past non-performance, at Teast recognition and renewal of the ancient treaties. If, then, France was held by the treaties, because the United States excused their non-performance,, they were equally bound to extenuate her deviations, under such a pressure, from prudence, order, and even from justice, if she were willing to make reparation. None knew so well as they, that France broke the treaties in Tess essential obligations, not from want of virtue to be faithful, but from want of magistracy to enforce fidelity. But while France was always " willing to make reparation, the United States insisted on being absolutely free from obligations. Jay’s treaty was confessedly injurious to France. Either that treaty was necessary to the United States, or it was unnecessary. If it was unnecessary, the complaints of France were just. If ne- <cessary, then she was entitled to equivalents. A release from the engagements in the ancient treaties was necessary to the United States, or it was <not. If it was not necessary, then the United States ought not to have bartered the merchants’ claims away for it. If it was necessary, then the United States received an adequate equivalent. Thus it appears that the ancient treaties had not lost their obligation against the United States by reason of any flagrant violation of them by France. Sixthly. The opponents of this bill next insist that the treaties had been ■abrogated by an act of Congress which was passed on the 1th day of July, 4798, viz: “Whereas the treaties concluded between the United States and France have ' been repeatedly violated on the part of the French Government, and the just claims • of the United States for reparation of the injuries so committed have been refused, and their attempts to negotiate an amicable adjustment of all complaints between the two nations have been repelled with indignity; and whereas, under the authority of the French Government, there is yet pursued against the United States a .system of predatory violence, infracting the. said treaties, and hostile to the rights of .a free and independent nation— “ Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of . America in Congress assembled, That the United States are of right freed and exonerated from the stipulations of the Treaties and of the Consular Convention heretofore concluded between the United States and France, and that the same shall not .henceforth be regarded as legally obligatory on the Government or citizens of the United States'.”—,Statutes at Large, I, p. 578.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM4ODY=