Britain's diminution, it is clearly inequitable. But attempts or suggestions of readjustment of any kind would be no less harmful to the United Kingdom than to the United States, while any distraction from a mighty mutual effort to resuscitate the world might and probably would prove universally disastrous. Ultimately, if the present trends of the two countries continue, we are convinced that the American people will be willing to accept from England a sum total equal to the original principal of her debt, upon the time-honored theory, still upheld by practice, that a gentleman cannot take interest from a friend. So long as John Bull continues the sportsman and friend he has recently proved himself to be, even Uncle Shylock will not forget that Uncle Sam was a gentleman. II. TO MLLE. MARIANNE There is no reason why anybody should be surprised at the indisposition of France to pay her debts or at her methods of avoidance-shrewdly devised to humor her pride without parting with her francs. Our annoying experience of the present time, so far from possessing an element of novelty, is strikingly analogous to that of a full century ago. Then, as now, the legality of our spoliation claims amounting to five million dollars was admitted by successive French administrations from 1817 forward, but also, then as now, actual settlement was evaded upon one pretext or another until 1831, when a predecessor of President Coolidge named Andrew Jackson announced that the day of reckoning could be postponed no longer and, after prolonged negotiations, succeeded in obtaining from the French Government a specific promise, similar to that executed by Ambassador Berenger, to pay the amount in annual instalments of 4,166,666 francs and 66 centimes each. The compact took the form of a treaty, which was duly ratified with the express stipulation that the first instalment should be paid one year from the date of exchange of ratifications, which took place in Washington on July 4, 1832. There were irreconcilables even then and Andrew the First, like Andrew the Second, was sharply criticized for making so large concessions; but he, too, while frankly admitting the fact, justified the sacrifice as "required from a sincere desire to avoid further collision upon this old and disturbing subject and in the confident expectation that the general relations between the two countries would be improved thereby." The Congress and the country approved. Thus far the two performances are identical, in all respects but one. Mr. Mellon's arrangement remained subject to acceptance by the French Parliament while President Jackson's settlement was ratified without qualification by every branch of the French Government whose endorsement was required by law. No previous achievement had pleased Old Hickory so much as this; gleefully he "rubbed his hands," as well he might. Now see what happened. Although the French Chambers were in session when advice of the exchange of ratifications reached Paris in April, 1832, the Government calmly pigeon-holed the notice, with the result that no appropriation was made to meet the first instalment due on February 2, 1833, and the draft of the United States presented on that date was dishonored by the Minister of Finance. Earnest remonstrance by the American Government induced the deliberately belated introduction by the French Government of a bill for an appropriation, which the Chamber solemnly referred to a Committee and, leaving it there, adjourned. So the game of shuttlecock between the Government and Parliament continued until May, 1834, when the Chamber officially refused to vote the appropriation. Most ingratiatingly and politely, as usual, however, the Government, in conveying this information, promised that "all the constitutional powers of the King and his Cabinet should be exercised to accomplish the object" at the next session, and again the disappointed President,"relying upon that sacred regard for the national faith and honor for which the French character has been so distinguished," possessed his soul in exemplary, though hardly characteristic, patience. But on December 1, 1834, nearly two years after his country's draft had been dishonored, Mr. Jackson, in a most temperate message, felt obliged to express to Congress his regret that the pledges made through the Minister of France had not been redeemed and that he must consider "further negotiations by the Executive out of the question." He continued: It is my conviction that the United States ought to insist on a prompt execution of the treaty, and in case it be refused or longer delayed take redress into their own hands. After the delay on the part of France of a quarter of a century in acknowledging these claims by treaty, it is not to be tolerated that another quarter of a century is to be wasted in negotiating about the payment. The laws of nations provide a remedy for such occasions. It is a well-settled principle of international code that where one nation owes another a liquidated debt which it refuses or neglects to pay, the aggrieved party may seize on the property belonging to the other, its citizens or subjects, sufficient to pay the debt without giving just cause of war. This remedy has been repeatedly resorted to, and recently by France herself toward Portugal, under circumstances less unquestionable. The time at which resort should be had to this or any other mode of redress is a point to be decided by Congress. If an appropriation shall not be made by the French Chambers at their next session, it may justly be concluded that the Government of France has finally determined to disregard its own solemn undertaking and refuse to pay an acknowledged debt. In that event every day's delay on our part will be a stain upon our national honor, as well as a denial of justice to our injured citizens. Prompt measures, when the refusal of France shall be complete, will not only be most honorable and just, but will have the best effect upon our national character. Since France, in violation of the pledges given through her Minister here, has delayed her final action so long that her decision will not probably be known in time to be communicated to this Congress, I recommend that a law be passed authorizing reprisals upon French property in case provision shall not be made for the payment of the debt at the approaching session of the French Chambers. Such a measure ought not to be considered by France as a menace. Her pride and power are too well known to expect anything from her fears and preclude the necessity of a declaration that nothing partaking of the character of intimidation is intended by us. She ought to look upon it as the evidence only of an inflexible determination on the part of the United States to insist on their rights. That Government, by doing only what it is itself acknowledged to be just, will be able to spare the United States the necessity of taking redress into their own hands and save the property of French citizens from that seizure and sequestration which American citizens so long endured without retaliation or redress. If she should continue to refuse that act of acknowledged justice and, in violation of the laws of nations, make reprisals on our part the occasion of hostilities against the United States, she would but add violence to injustice, and could not fail to expose herself to the just censure of civilized nations and to the retributive judgment of Heaven. Collision with France is the more to be regretted on account of the position she occupies in Europe in relation to liberal institutions, but in maintaining our national rights and honor all governments are alike to us. If by a collision with France in a case where she is clearly in the wrong the march of liberal principles shall be impeded, the responsibility for that result as well as every other will rest on her head. Having submitted these considerations, it belongs to Congress to decide whether after what has taken place it will still await the further action of the French Chambers or now adopt such provisional measures as it may deem necessary and best adapted to protect the rights and maintain the honor of the country. Whatever that decision may be, it will be faithfully enforced by the Executive as far as he is authorized so to do. The House of Representatives adopted a resolution declaring that the execution of the treaty ought to be insisted upon but defeated a bill appropriating three million dollars for "extraordinary military expenses," and the Senate merely pronounced it "inexpedient at present to adopt any legislative measures" the subject; both Houses obviously thought best to note first the effect of the message in France. on They had not long to wait. France was surprised beyond measure. The temperateness of the President's previous communications had been misinterpreted as a sign of weakness or of fright. This message was different. It was not a timid Executive writing perfunctorily; it was Old Hickory himself speaking up and clearly meaning business. Even as of the present day, in trying situations, the French people had been "deluded by the politicians" and the only thing left for the Ministry to do was to detect and resent an "insult to the nation"-the dernier ressort of French diplomacy-and suspend official relations by recalling their Minister to Washington and sending passports to the American Minister in Paris. "Having in this manner," Jackson reported to Congress with quite delightful irony, "vindicated the dignity of France, they next proceeded to illustrate her justice" by proposing an appropriation bill which should become operative as soon as, but not before, the President had virtually apologized for what he himself smoothly depicted as his "conditional recommendation of reprisals." To this peremptory demand he replied in the plain language which he had now substituted for the conciliatory phrases which he had been using vainly for years: The honor of my country shall never be stained by an apology from me for the statement of truth and the performance of duty; nor can I give any explana tion of my official acts except such as is due to integrity and justice and consistent with the principles on which our institutions have been framed. So that was that. But to leave no doubt in anybody's mind that he was not only closing but bolting the door, instead of "explaining" his proposals of reprisals,-"peaceful remedies he called them,-he renewed them, with the added mild suggestion that it might be sufficient at first to prohibit the introduction of French products and the entry of French vessels into American ports, as "a proper preliminary step to stronger measures should their adoption be rendered necessary by subsequent events." He then directed the attention of the Congress to "public notices of naval preparations on the part of France destined for our seas," and continued: Of the cause and intent of these armaments I have no authentic information, nor any other means of judging except such as are common to yourselves and to the public; but whatever may be their object, we are not at liberty to regard them as unconnected with the measures which hostile movements on the part of France may compel us to pursue. They at least deserve to be met by adequate preparation on our part, and I therefore strongly urge large and speedy appropriations for the increase of the Navy and the completion of our coast defenses. "Come what may," he concluded, "the explanation which France demands can never be accorded, and no armament, however powerful and imposing, at a distance or on our coast, will, I trust, deter us from discharging the high duties which we owe to our constituents, our national character, and to the world." This message was delivered to Congress on January 7, 1836. On January 27 the British Government kindly offered its services as mediator, and on February 3 Secretary Forsyth frankly and confidingly agreed on behalf of the President to "abide by the opinion" of His Britannic Majesty, with a simple reservation to the effect that such opinion should involve no concession upon any point claimed by the United States. But there were no hearings. All this, of course, was only the customary fol-de-rol to help Mlle. Marianne to save her pretty face and, no later than February 15, the British Government notified Mr. Forsyth that the French Government were so enchanted with "the frank and honorable manner" in which the |