« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »
47. Mr. Aldis to the Secretary of State, April 15, 1882. 48. Mr. Aldis to Mr. Frelingbuysen, February 3, 1883. 49. Mr. Aldis to Mr. Frelinghuysen, April 16, 1883.
50. Minutes of the session of the French and American Claims Commission, held July 11, 1881.
51. Minutes of the session of the French and Amcrican Claims Commission, held October 12, 1881.
52. Mr. Peddrick to Mr. Evarts, December 1, 1880.
V.-Correspondence with Mr. Boutwell, agent and counsel for the United States.
60. Mr. Boutwell to Mr. Evarts, January 25, 1881.
108. Mr. Boutwell to Mr. Frelingbuysen, December 21, 1883. 109. Mr. Frelinghuysen to Mr. Boutwell, December 27, 1883. 110. Mr. Boutwell to Mr. Frelinghuysen, January 8, 1884. 111. Mr. Boutwell to Mr. Frelinghuysen, January 18, 1884. 112. Mr. Frelingbuysen to Mr. Boutwell, January 21, 1884. 113. Mr. Boutwell to Mr. Frelinghuysen, January 24, 1884. 114. Mr. Frelinghuysen to Mr. Boutwell, February 7, 1884. 115. Mr. Boatwell to Mr. Frelinghnysen, February 11, 1884. 116. Mr. Boutwell to Mr. Frelinghuysen, February 20, 1884. 117. Mr. Boutwell to Mr. Davis, February 23, 1884. 118. Mr. Boutwell to Mr. Frelinghuysen March 31, 1884. 119. Mr. Frelinghuysen to Mr. Boutwell, April 2, 1884. 120. Mr. Frelinghuysen to Mr. Bontwell, April 2, 1884. 121. Mr. Boutwell to Mr. Frelinghuysen, June 28, 1884.
ACCOMPANYING THE REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE, TRANSMITTING THE CORRESPONDENCE OF THE FRENCH AND AMERICAN CLAIMS COMMISSION, IN RESPONSE TO THE RESOLUTION OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF JANUARY 9, 1885.
Mr. Outrey to Mr. Evarts.
LEGATION OF FRANCE IN THE UNITED STATES,
Washington, August 23, 1880. Mr. SECRETARY OF STATE:
I have the honor to inform you that, in execution of the convention of the 15th January last, M. de Geofroy, minister plenipotentiary of the first class, has been designated by the French Government to exercise the functions of commissioner in the Commission charged with settling the Franco-American claims. By the same decree Mr. Lanen, consul of the first class, has been appointed agent, and Mr. de Chambrun coun. sel of France before that Commission.
In order not to depart from the spirit of the Convention, the compensation of M. de Geofroy shall be the same as that fixed by Congress for the commissioner of the United States, namely, 40,000 francs. I cannot, however, fail to observe to you that, according to our several conversations previously held on this subject, we had thought that the sum of 50,000 francs would have been adopted; therefore M. de Frey. sinet expresses some regret that the appropriation bill should have established a reduced limit of $8,000, seeing that it also has to be applied to the Brazilian commissioner as well as to that of the United States, without leaving any latitude for giving, as far as possible, to the three delegates positions really equivalent from a material point of view. In directing me to address this communication to you, the min. ister of foreign affairs charges me to ask you if the sum set apart as the allowance by the United States to the third commissioner is to be con. sidered as definitely fixed. Perhaps, when we become acquainted with the exact situation of the commissioner, you may judge it opportune to arrive at an understanding for the purpose of according to him a supplementary concession, justified by the exceptional circumstances in which an agent sent so far from his country on a temporary mission would find himself placed. Accept, Mr. Secretary of State, &c.,
MAX. OUTREY. Hon. Wm. M. EVARTS,
Secretary of State.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
Washington, October 7, 1880. SIR : I have the honor to inform you that the President has named Asa 0. Aldis, esq., as commissioner on behalf of the United States, under the claims convention of January 15, 1880, between this country and France; and likewise that he has appointed Washington F. Ped. drick, esq., as secretary on the part of the United States to the Commission to be organized under the convention in question. Accept the assurances of my very high consideration.
WM. M. EVARTS. Mr. MAXIME OUTREY, &c.
Washington, March 24, 1881. Mr. SECRETARY OF STATE:
The French commissioner in the French-American Claims Commission informs me that, in pursuance of a recent decision of the ministry of foreign affairs at Paris, Mr. Paul Dejardin, consul at Charleston, has been appointed agent of the French Government in that Commission, vice Mr. Laneu.
In accordance with the desire expressed by Mr. de Geofroy, I have the honor to bring this change to your notice, begging you to be pleased to take the measures necessary to cause Mr. Dejardin to be recognized in his new capacity.
Be pleased to accept, Mr. Secretary of State, the assurances of my very high consideration.
MAX. OUTREY. Hon. JAMES G. BLAINE,
Secretary of State of the United States.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
Washington, March 28, 1881. SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your note of the 24th instant, in which you inform me that the minister of foreign affairs of France has designated Mr. Paul Dejardin, consul at Charles ton, to act as agent of your Government, before the French and American Claims Commission, in place of Mr. Laneu. Accept, sir, a renewed assurance of my highest consideration.
JAMES G. BLAINE. Mr. MAXIME OUTREY, &c.
Mr. Outrey to Mr. Blaine.
LEGATION OF FRANCE IN THE UNITED STATES,
Washington, November 18, 1881. Mr. SECRETARY OF STATE:
In the month of February last Mr. Isaac Taylor presented a memorial to the French and American Claims Commission. The object of that paper was to induce that Commission to examine a case in which certain merchandise, alleged to be American, had been seized by a French vessel of war, the said merchandise having been shipped in 1870 on board of the Magdalena, a German vessel about to sail from New York for Bremen.
This case baving been decided in France by the prize court, and afterwards, on appeal by the council of state, the agent of the French Government before the Commission has invoked the
stipulations of Article II of the convention of January 15, 1880, requesting the agent of the United States Government to withdraw it before action in the case is taken by the Commission.
On the 27th of June last Mr. Boutwell addressed to Mr. Grimaud de Caux a note written by Mr. O'Connor, from which it appears that the objections raised by our agent do not seem to be approved by the legal adviser of the Department of State. The question of principle which is raised by this circumstance may have such serious consequences, as regards the ulterior enforcement of the stipulations of the convention, that I deem it my duty to call your most serious attention to the difference of opinion existing between our agents.
As Mr. O'Connor very correctly remarks in his aforesaid note, “any international question that might or may arise as to the true interpretation of the treaty should be dealt with directly by and between the diplomatic representatives of the respective Governments,” and this is precisely the case that now presents itself; it is therefore absolutely necessary that we should exchange our views in order to be able to set. tle this difference.
Mr. O'Connor commits the first error in his note by stating that the claims are not necessarily presented to the Commission by the respective Governments on behalf of their citizens, but that they may be presented directly by the claimants themselves. Articles 5 and 6 of the convention absolutely exclude this view of the case. The appointinent of agents, whose mediation is solicited for the presentation of claims, is designed for the very purpose of securing to both Governments an efficient examination of their nature and legality.
As to the opinion that the Commission may be compared to a Federal court, it seems to me to be equally erroneous. The Federal courts, if I am not mistaker, are governed by the Constitution and the general laws of the country, which laws have provided means for rectifying any errors that they may make, either in respect to jurisdiction or to competence; whereas the Cominission is an exceptional tribunal, baving a special duty to perform, which is determined by the convention itself. In investing the Commisson with absolute powers, and in according to its decisions a character of finality from which there is no appeal, the two Governments intended that those powers should be exercised only within the rigorous limits fixed by them, and they have never dreamed of authorizing the Commissioners to enlarge their sphere of action by leaving the interpretation of the clauses of the treaty to them. Mr.