800 APPENDIX TO BRITISH CASE. 



If the proclamation of 1830 and the order in council of that year 

 extended to the fishing vessels engaged in the fisheries adjacent to the 

 British Provinces on the North Atlantic and repealed the treaty of 

 1818, in its restrictive parts, the position taken by the United States 

 before the Halifax Commission was a serious error. 



XV. A PRECEDENT WAS ESTABLISHED BY PRESIDENT JACKSON IN 1834 

 AS TO THE WISDOM OF FORBEARANCE IN COMMERCIAL RETALIATION, OR 

 IN MAKING REPRISALS FOR A WILLFUL VIOLATION OF TREATY OBLIGA- 

 TIONS, AS TO THE MEANING OF WHICH THERE WAS NO DISPUTE, RATHER 

 THAN DISTURB SERIOUSLY THE INTERESTS OF OUR PEOPLE. 



The results of a firm but pacific policy in demanding a compliance 

 with treaty obligations with friendly powers are strongly exempli- 

 fied in the conduct of President Jackson, in reference to the treaty of 

 July 4, 1831, with the French Government. 



By that treaty France acknowledged an indebtedness to the United 

 States of 25,000,000 francs payable in six annual instalments, with 

 interest, the first due February 7, 1833. The Chamber of Deputies, 

 by a majority of eight, refused to enable the King to carry out the 

 treaty by withholding the necessary appropriation. This was on the 

 alleged ground that our plenipotentiary, having a superior knowl- 

 edge of the facts, had obtained an undue advantage of the French 

 negotiator in the terms of the treaty. 



The reply of Mr. Livingston, that he had obtained the information 

 on which he had acted almost exclusively on papers obtained in 

 France, was a conclusive vindication of that good and eminent man. 



This and subsequent refusals of the deputies, together with irritat- 

 ing expressions of the French Government, caused the withdrawal of 

 diplomatic intercourse with that Government. And demands of the 

 French deputies that President Jackson should withdraw certain 

 forcible comments made by him in his messages to Congress on this 

 subject gave him just cause for indignation. 



In view, however, of the serious results that always follow re- 

 prisals, retorsions, and retaliations, even under the heat of a just 

 indignation for a flagrant wrong, President Jackson thus advised 

 Congress, in his sixth annual message (1834), as to the policy of 

 such action : 



Our institutions are essentially pacific. Peace and friendly intercourse with 

 all nations are as much the desire of our Government as they are the interest 

 of our people. But these objects are not to be permanently secured by sur- 

 rendering the rights of our citizens, or permitting solemn treaties for their 

 indemnity in cases of flagrant wrong to be abrogated or set aside. 



It is undoubtedly in the power of Congress seriously to affect the agricul- 

 tural and manufacturing interests of France by the passage of laws relating 

 to her trade with the United States. Her products, manufactures, and ton- 

 nage may be subjected to heavy duties in our ports, or all commercial inter- 

 course with her may be suspended. But there are powerful and, to my mind, 

 conclusive objections to this mode of proceeding. We can not embarrass or cut 

 off the trade of France without at the same time, in some degree, embarrassing 

 or cutting off our own trade. The injury of such a warfare must fall, though 

 unequally, upon our own citizens, and could not but impair the means of the 

 Government, and weaken that united sentiment in support of the rights and 

 honor of the nation which must now pervade every bosom. 



Nor is it impossible that such a course of legislation would introduce once 

 more into our national councils these disturbing questions in relation to the 

 tariff of duties which have been so recently put to rest; besides, by every 

 measure adopted by the Government of the United States, with the view of 



