Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

It is understood, of course, that further and other motions for dismissal may be made ou either side hereafter, as the pleadings or proof may disclose that claims come within the operation of Article II, as mutually construed. Accept, sir, &c.,

FRED'K T. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. MAXIME OUTREY, &c.

No. 10.

(Translation.)
Mr. Outrey to Mr. Frelinghuysen.
LEGATION OF FRANCE IN THE UNITED STATES,

Washington, February 9, 1882. Mr. SECRETARY OF STATE:

I have received the letter which you did me the honor to address to me under date of the 17th instant, requesting the withdrawal of a certain number of claims against the United States Government, which are now on the docket of the French and American Commission. That letter was accompanied by a list presented on the 25th of January by the assistant counsel of the American Government, showing the cases which, as is stated, that Commission, according to Article II of the convention of January 15, 1880, is not competent to examine.

I have transmitted these documents to the agent of the French Gov. ernment, who has special charge of the presentation of the claims of our citizens, requesting him to come to an understanding with Mr. Boutwell or his assistant for the elucidation of the facts, and I do not for an instant doubt that he will speedily withdraw such as have already been settled.

The understanding which was reached in December last between the Government of the United States and that of France in regard to the precise meaning of the stipulations of Article II of the convention leaves no room for the supposition that there can be any difference of opinion between the agents of the two countries as to the principles whereby they are to be guided. It will, I think, be sufficient for them to communicate to each other the documents on wbich their responsibility is to rest. If, bowever, any disagreement shall arise, it will be the duty of Mr. Grimaud de Caux to inform the legation of the reasons thereof, and I shall not fail in that case to confer with the Department of State.

Be pleased to accept, Mr. Secretary of State, the assurances of my very high consideration.

MAX. OUTREY.

No. 11.

Mr. Frelinghuysen to Mr. Outrey.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE,

Washington, February 18, 1882. SIR : Referring to our recent correspondence in reference to the dismissal of such of the claims now pending before the French and American Claims Commission as may be found from time to time to come within the operation of Article II of the convention of January

15, 1880, as mutually construed, I now have the honor to request that appropriate action may be taken by your legation in reference to the cases of Jules Perrodin, No. 90, and of G. A. Le More, No. 211, which are referred to in the accompanying papers. Accept, &c.,

FRED'K T. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. MAXIME OUTREY, &c.

No. 12.

[Translation. /
Mr. Outrey to Mr. Frelinghuysen.
LEGATION OF FRANCE IN THE UNITED STATES,

Washington, February 22, 1882. Mr. SECRETARY OF STATE:

I bave received the letter which you did me the honor to address to me on the 18th of this month, wherewith you transmitted to me various documents relative to the claims of which Messrs. Boutwell and John Davis ask the withdrawal as coming within the scope of the second article of the convention of 15th January, 1880. As I had already previ. ously done with regard to the list which you sent me on the 7th of this month, I now send these documents to Mr. Grimaud de Caux, charging bim to come to an understanding with the agent of the Government of the United States before the Commission.

Permit me to embrace this fresh occasion to call your attention to the erroneous impression which seems to exist in the mind of Mr. Bout. well concerning the part to be taken by the Department of State and the legation of France in the application of the second article in ques. tion.

According to the principles established by common consent, as is witnessed by the notes exchanged on the 18th of November and the 17th and 21st of December, 1881, the interpretation of the clauses of the treaty belong to the two contracting Governments and not in any way to the Commission, from which it follows that in case of disagreement between the respective agents before the Commission, the question should be laid before the two Governments, but this arrangement can. not have the effect of discbarging the agents from the obligation of giv. ing joint consideration to the difficulties which may arise. It is, there. fore, only in the event of its being impossible for them to reach an agreement that they should make reference to us, and then it is indispensable that they should lay before us the objections raised on either hand.

Now, I see nothing in the letters of Mr. Boutwell or in the papers therewith which can enlighten us as to the causes of disagreement.

I am convinced, Mr. Secretary of State, that after baving examined the question you will recognize that any other manner of proceeding can only lead to delays and perhaps regrettable confusion. I should, therefore, be very glad should you deem it opportune to instruct the agent of the Government of the United States to be pleased hereafter to address bimself first to the agent of the Government of France, as the latter has bimself done to Mr. Boutwell in the case of Isaac Taylor.

Be pleased to accept, Mr. Secretary of State, the assurances of my very high consideration.

MAX. OUTREY. Hon. FREDERICK T. FRELINGHUYSEN.

No. 13. .

Mr. Frelinghuysen to Mr. Outrey.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE,

Washington, February 28, 1882. SIR: Acknowledging the receipt of your note of the 22d instant, I have the honor to inform you that I fully concur in your suggestions as to the best method of proceeding in the class of cases pending before the French and American Claims Commission, which come within the principle of the case of Isaac Taylor, as mutually agreed upon between the two Governments, and that I have accordingly instructed Mr. Boutwell to confer with the agent of France in regard to such cases, and to arrange all that can be arranged in that way, without reference to diplomatic means. Accept, &c.,

FRED'K T. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. MAXIME OUTREY, &o.

No. 14.

Mr. Outrey to Mr. Frelinghuysen.
LEGATION OF FRANCE IN THE UNITED STATES,

Washington, May 8, 1882. Mr. SECRETARY OF STATE:

On the 28th of February last the majority of the Commission entrusted with the settlement of French and American claims rendered a decision worded as follows in regard to the claim of one Chourreau :

In this case upon the facts before us we are not prepared to hold that at the time of the burning of the cotton the place was within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, and therefore the claim is disallowed.

BARON DE ARINOS.

A. 0. ALDIS. To understand that decision it should be said that the place where arose the damage for wbich M. Chourreau was asking redress was situated within the territory of the Confederate States.

The agent of the United States has proposed to give to this decision the character of a general rule, and as early as the 14th of March he submitted to the Commission for its approval, the following motion :

The Government of the United States is not liable for a loss of property if the property at the time the loss occurred was not within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.

No serious objection would have been made to that proposition if their true meaning had been left to the words “territorial jurisdiction," but their sense was completely distorted in setting forth that at the time of the rebellion the Southern States were withdrawn from the territorial jurisdiction of the United States up to the time the Federal courts had there resumed their full exercise.

According to this strange doctrine the jurisdiction of the Commission would be limited to certain geographical boundaries arbitrarily established in accordance with vague and undefined interpretations. Beyond these limits damages, even though they were caused by the Federal authorities of the United States, would not give rise to indemnity.

The Commission first established this rule from the moment when it rejected the claim of Chourreau without examining it on its merits and solely on the ground of the locality where the damage occurred.

Therefore the meaning attributed to the words territorial jurisdiction” was not doubtful, and being thus understood Article I of the convention, designed principally to settle the French claims left in abey. ance during so many years, had for effect to suppress them almost wholly.

Within these terms we are authorized to assert that the interpretation, adopted by the majority of the Commission and supported by Mr. Boutwell, is contrary to the spirit of the convention, and that it conflicts with the manifest intention of the contracting parties.

The consequences which it entails were too serious for the agents of the French Government to allow it to pass without protest; thus in resting upon a difference in the wording between the English and French text, a difference of which an attempt was made to take advantage, they requested the Commission to refer it to the high contracting parties, and until they should have come to an understanding as to the exact meaning of Article I of the convention, to suspend the examination of any affair coming within the category pointed out by the motion of Mr. Bontwell.

The Commission acceded to this proposition, and it is thus that we have been led to try to find out the way to settle the conflict.

I was happy to observe during our last interview that we appreciated the facts in the same way, and in conformity with our agreement I have the honor of addressing you the present letter to define our view.

According to us, the Government of the United States never having lost the right to exercise jurisdiction in all the States forming the Federal Union, the words "territorial jurisdiction," in contradistinction with the word “territory," could not have a restrictive meaning; consequently, whatever may have been the reasons for that they do not occur in the French text, the use of these words in the English text should not exclude the claims founded in damages caused by civil or military authorities within the boundaries of the territory of the States in rebellion. In other words, the fact that damage was inflicted in the Confederate States, where the operation of Federal justice was momentarily suspended, could no have any influence on the validity of the claim, and that claim should be determined on its own merits, without being restricted by any question of locality, the Southern States not more than the Northern States ever having ceased to constitute a portion of the territory of the United States.

This interpretation of the English and French texts gives Article I of the convention of the 15th of January, 1880, its true meaning. It agrees with the spirit of the convention and it re-establishes that perfect equality of treatment which the contracting parties have always kept in mind.

If, as I am confident, our views agree fully with those you expressed on last Friday, I should be obliged if you would be good enough to acknowledge the receipt of this letter in stating plainly the understanding arrived at between us. As soon as yours is received I consider that it would be proper to communicate to the Commission a copy of the correspondence interchanged on this subject in order that it may be inspired with the interpretation adopted by common consent.

Please accept, Mr. Secretary of State, the assurances of my very high consideration.

MAX. OUTREY. Hon. FREDERICK T. FRELINGHUYSEN.

No. 15.

Mr. Frelinghuysen to Mr. Outrey.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE,

Washington, May 9, 1882. SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your note of the 8th of May, 1882, in relation to the interpretation of the treaty between the United States and France, concluded Japuary 15, 1880, which was referred to the two Governments by the Commission.

Without assenting to the inference which possibly might be drawn from some non essential observations of your note, I find that we are in substance agreed as to the correct interpretation of that portion of the treaty to which this correspondence relates, and which was the subject of our conversation.

I am glad, in compliance with your request, to state the understand. ing arrived at between us. The examination which I have made of the negotiations preliminary to the treaty, and of each text, convince me that the words “territorial jurisdiction,” when used in the first article of the treaty, were intended to have the force of the word “territory," which is in fact used in the French text. So far as the decision in the Chourre.ru case was in conflict with this definition of the words “ terri. torial jurisdiction" as being synonymous with the word territoire in the French text, it failed to carry out the purposes of the two Governments and should be corrected.

I desire, however, in order that it may be a complete understanding on this point, to state that I do not express any opinion as to the valid. ity of claims which arose in that part of the territory of the United States wbich was in rebellion at the time the claims are alleged to have arisen, but leave such claims to be decided in each case by the Com. mission in accordance with the rules of public law, of justice, and of equity; the interpretation now given to the treaty pot adding force to claims which, measured by those rules, may be invalid. Accept, &c.,

FRED'K T. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. MAXIME OUTREY.

No. 16.

Mr. Frelinghuysen to Mr. Roustan.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE,

Washington, August 1, 1882. SIR: With reference to previous correspondence on the same subject, I now bave the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your note of the 20th ultiino, in regard to the proposed Paris Conference relative to the protection of submarine cables, in which you advise me of Mr. Frey. cinet's proposition that the 16th of October next be designated as the day for the opening of the sessions of the Conference, both for the convention relative to electrical unities and for that concerning i he protection of submarine cables, aud inquire whether the date named is acceptable to this Government.

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »