Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

At all the hearings of this case the claimants were represented by counsel, and the question of jurisdiction was specifically raised and specifically decided in the affirmative by the Supreme Court of the United States, the court of highest resort in this country.

Mr. Roustan will communicate our position fully to his Government, but while there is no desire to transfer the negotiations on this or other cases before the Commission from Washington to Paris, as Mr. Ferry appears heretofore and before Mr. Roustan's return to have been under some misapprebension as to this matter, it may be well, and I suggest that you converse informally on the subject with the minister, that there may be no doubt as to our position.

Since the preparation of this dispatch, I learn that Mr. Roustan will to day telegraph to his Government requesting instructions as to consenting to a suspension of proceedings before the Commission in the Le More case until diplomatic negotiations are finished, and that he will immediately send a copy of my note to Mr. Denant to the foreign office. I am, sir, your obedient servant,

FRED, T. FRELINGHUYSEN. LEVI P. MORTON, Esq.

No. 37.

(Telegram.)

Mr. Frelinghuysen to Mr. Morton.

WASHINGTON, January 8, 1884. MORTON, Minister, Paris :

Mr. Ferry's letter to you of 27th December received from French minister. Lacking assent of both Governments, the French Commission decided to go on with Le More case. It was to obtain this very consent to delay that the telegram of December 21st was sent you. This Government assented immediately to a similar request of the French Government in the cases of Taylor and Chourreau. In the Taylor case the French Government did not deem the Commission com. petent to decide upon the application of Article II. We assented to this interpretation and the case was withdrawn. French minister here telegraphs to-day for instructions as to consenting to suspend action pending negotiations. Urge suspension. Instruction to you by this mail.

FRED. T. FRELINGHUYSEN.

No. 38.

(Telegram.]

Mr. Frelinghuysen to Mr. Morton.

WASHINGTON, January 11, 1883. MORTON, Minister, Paris:

The French minister called on me about eight months ago insisting that what is known as the Taylor case should be withdrawn from the Commission because it had been decided finally by the courts of France,

and consequently did not fall within the description of cases agreed to be submitted to the Commission. He refused to submit the question of jurisdiction to the Commission, saying that was a diplomatic question. I agreed with him and directed the case to be withdrawn, as it was accordingly. The Le More case has been finally decided by the highest court of this country. I ask that it be withdrawn.

That is declined. I ask that the case be not pressed at once, that France may consider the propriety of my request; this is declined, and I am told that the case must proceed, leaving it to the tribunal to determine the question of jurisdiction ; the very position that the French minister protested against in the Taylor case, in which protest I concurred. It is needless for me to say that this Government cannot submit to any rules regulating this Commission but those that are equal to each nation. I trust that direction will be given that the case be delayed that this question may be in an amicable manner adjusted satisfactorily to both nations. If it is not we will insist on the ruling in the Taylor case governing the Le More case.

I understand that it is claimed that this Government stated that the Le More case must be prosecuted to a final hearing in our courts, and that not until then they would consider it diplomatically.

This statement was, however, before the treaty of 1880 was made, excluding from the Commission all cases that had been finally judicially disposed of, and the question now is not whether that claim shall be diplomatically settled, but, on the contrary, it is claimed that it shall be determined by a Commission from which by the treaty of eighty it is expressly excluded.

To you personally and confidentially I add that an impression prevails that all adverse answers in this case are inspired by French commissioner by telegraph, the minister not being consulted.

FRELINGHUYSEN.

No. 39.

(Telegram. 1

Mr. Morton to Mr. Frelinghuysen.

PARIS, January 14, 1884. PRELINGHUYSEN, Secretary, Washington :

Expect a written answer to-morrow about Le More case. I fear your request will not be granted. It is remarked that in Taylor's case you agreed with French Government that it had been tried in France; in the same manner France agreed with you that certain other cases have been finally disposed of in the United States, and they were withdrawn, but in the Le More case France dissents. She believes that the main point has not been finally decided upon by American courts, and sees no other way of settling this disagreement than by referring the matter to the Commission itself. Powers of Commission being about to expire, France does not see how case can be delayed.

MORTON,

Minister. 4. Ex. 235_-3

No. 40.

Mr. Morton to Mr. Frelinghuysen.

No. 478.]

LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES,

Paris, January 15, 1884. SIR: Your telegrams of the 9th and 11th instant, in relation to the Le More case, were duly received, and communicated at once to Mr. Jules Ferry.

My telegram of the 14th instant gave you the substance of the answer which Mr. Ferry proposed to make. This answer was received this morning, a copy and translation of which, with copies of my telegram, my notes to Mr. Ferry, and of your two telegrams, I inclose herewitb.

I will add confidentially that although the French Government has never made directly, or even indirectly, any complaint as to the operations of the Commission, I have reason to beliere that it has given it very little satisfaction. The French Government did not expect that the proceedings of the Commission would be so elaborate and attended with such expenses and costs for the claimants. They were under the impression, it seems, that its judgments would be rendered more in equity than in law, and that each claim would be promptly and fairly disposed of without involving long and costly pleadings and charges. If I have well understood intimations made, I must say in a very discreet manner, the French foreign office fears that when the results obtained by submitting the French claims to this Commission will be oftcially reported to the Chambers, a great feeling of dissatisfaction will prevail. They ascribe this, I am informed, to the great influence of Mr. Boutwell, who, they say, carries everything his own way and upon whom they look as too keen a lawyer, one whose high position overshades the plain and simple-minded representatives of the French Government near the Commission. I have the honor to be, sir, very respectfully,

LEVI P. MORTON.

Mr. Morton to Mr. Jules Ferry.

LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES,

Paris, January 9, 1884. SIR: I have the honor to transmit herewith a copy and translation of a telegram received this morning from my Government in relation to the case of Le More, which was the object of my verbal note of the 22d ultimo to your excellency, and of your reply of the 27th.

It seems that this case was not tried on the 28th, as you supposed it would be, and that it is still pending before the Franco-American Commission.

Mr. Frelingbuysen instructs me to again request the suspension of the trial previously applied for, and remarks that on a preceding occasion your Government made a similar request, which was promptly complied with. As on this occasion it was not deemed that the Commission had authority to decide upon the application of article 2, it is expected that the same ruling will be adbered to now, and that a reasonable time will be allowed for negotiation between the two Governments as to the applicability of this article to the present case. I avail myself, &c.,

L. P. MORTON. His Excellency Mr. Jules FERRY,

President of the Council, Minister of Foroign Afairs, Paris.

(Translation.)

Mr. Ferry to Mr. Morton.

Paris, January 14, 1884. Sir: On the 9th and 12th of this month you were good enough to communicate to me two further telegrams from Mr. Frelinghuysen relative to the claim brought by Mr. Le More against the Government of the United States. The Secretary of State insists upon a postponement of this case until such time as the two Governments might come to an understanding. He recalls that upon a previous similar occasion the Government of the United States consented to the withdrawal of the Taylor claims, thus concurring in the opinion of the French Government which refused tho Commission the faculty of deciding with reference to the application of Article II of the treaty of 1880.

We can but admit that in the matter of the Taylor claim we thought fit to insist that the American Government should itself enforce Article II of the treaty by with. drawing a claim which was evidently contrary to the provisions of the said article. Following the same doctrine, we have on our side withdrawn, previous to any decision of the Commission, the Cayan, Laplace, and Laplante claims, and in part the Perdreauville and Perrodin claims, which, in the opinion of the Washington Cabinet, as in ours, did not come within the conditions prescribed by the treaty; but in both cases, if the two Governments had not succeeded in coming to an understanding upon thó interlocutory question, the settlement of the same would necessarily have been left to the Commission itself.

Such is precisely the position in which the two Governments are respectively placed at the present time with reference to the Le More claim. The observatious made by the Government of the United States have not dispelled the doubts that, in our view, exist upon the point as to whether this claim should be considered as having been previously decided by competent authorities.

Hence it appears to us impossible to deprive our compatriot of the last resource left open to him. “At the end of the telegram annexed to your letter of the 12th January Mr. Frelinghuysen alludes to the diplomatic negotiations bearing upon the Le More claim previously to 1880. Our legation at Washington has in fact not ceased to endeavor to obtain a settlement, never having admitted that the question could be considered as having been finally determined npon by competent authorities; and if all the proceedings taken were interrupted from 1880, it is precisely because in our view the Commission coustituted by the treaty of that same year was to be called upon to decide the question with reference to which the Governments had been unable to come to an understanding.

In this position we cannot see the utility of the adjournment requested by tho Washington Cabinet, since the controversy inay be considered as exhansted after tho negotiations which took place between the two Governinents upon the subject matter. A further postponement would have no other effect than to prolong still more tho period of work of the Commission to the prejudice of the interests of the claimants.

Mr. Roustan must have informed Mr. Frelinghuysen directly of the motives which do not permit us to concur in the opinion expressed by the United States Government in this instance, and which determine us to leave to the Commission the care of finally appreciating, according to Article II of the treaty of 1880, whether the claim combines the necessary conditions to be decided upon its merits. Receive, &c.,

JULES FERRY. Mr. MORTON,

Minister of the United States, Paris.

Mr. Morton to Mr. Ferry.
LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATRA,

Paris, January 12, 1884. Sir: I have the honor to send herewith a copy and translation of a telegram which I have received this morning from Mr. Frelinghuysen in relation to the Lo Moro case.

I cannot add anything to the statement so clearly made by Mr. Frelinghuysen in this telegram. The position he has taken does not need to be supported by argument, and I trust your excellency will not hesitate to meet his request with your accus tomed friendly disposition, which is so cordially reciprocated by my Government. I avail myself of this occasion to renew, &c.,

L. P. MORTON. His Excellency Mr. JULES FERRY,

President of the Council, Minister of Foreign Afairs, Paris.

[Telegram.)

Mr. Frelinghuysen to Mr. Morton.

MORTON, Minister, Paris :

Mr. Ferry's letter to you of 27th December received from French minister, lacking asseut of both Governments, the French Commission decided to go on with Le More case. It was to obtain this very consent for delay that the telegram of December 2 was sent you. This Government assented immediately to a similar request of the French Government in the case of Taylor and Chourrean. In the Taylor case the French Government did not deem the Cominission competent to decide upon the application of Article II. We assented to this interpretation, and the case was withdrawn. French minister here telegraphs to-day for instructions as to consenting to suspend action pending negotiations. Urge suspension. Instruction to you by this mail.

FRELINGHUYSEN. WASHINGTON, January 9.

[Telegram.)
Mr. Frelinghuysen to Mr. Morton.

WASHINGTON, January 11, 1884. MORTON, Minister, Paris :

The French minister called ou me about eight months ago, insisting that what is known as the Taylor case should be withdrawn from the Commission because it had been decided finally by the courts of France, and consequently did not fall within the description of cases agreed to be submitted to the Commission. He refused to submit the question of jurisdiction to second Congress, saying that was a diplomatic question. I agreed with him, and directed the case to be withdrawn, as it was accordingly. The Le More case has been finally decided by the highest court of this country. I ask that it be withdrawn--that is, I ask the case be not pressed at once, that France may consider the propriety of my request. This is declined, leaving it to the tribunal to determine the question of jurisdiction, the very function that the French minister protested against in the Taylor case, in which protest I concurred. It is needless for me to say that this Government cannot submit to any rule regulating the Commission but those that are equal to each nation. I trust that direction will be given that the case be delayed so that this question may be in an amicable manner adjusted satisfactorily to both nations. If it is not, we will insist upon the ruling in the Taylor case governing the Le More case. I understand that it is claimed that this Government stated that the Le More case must be prosecuted to a final hearing in our courts, and that not until then would they consider it diplomatically. This statement, however, was before the treaty of 1880 was made excluding from the Commissjon all cases that had been finally judicially disposed of; and the question now is not

that it shall be determined by a commission froni which, by the treaty of 18:0, it is oxpressly excluded.

FRELINGHUYSEN.

[blocks in formation]

FRELINGHUYSEN, Secretary, Washington :

Expect a written answer to-morrow about Le More case. I fear your request will not be granted. It is remarked that in Taylor case you agreed with French Government that it had been tried in France; in the same manner France agreed with you that certain other cases had been finally disposed of in the United States, and they were withdrawn. But in the Le More case France dissents. She believes that the main point has not been finally decided upon by American courts, and sees no other · way of settling this disagreement than by referring the matter to the Commission

itself. Powers of Commission being about to expire, France does not see how case can be delayed.

MORTON,

Minister. Paris, January 14, 1884.

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »