valid debt. The pretensions in his mind, most | revived either by negotiation or acknowledglikely, were the claims of mutual guaranty, and the privilege of neutrals; but whatever they were, this was only another mode for disposing of them as not sustainable. So we see, sir, that the ratifying power acted on the principle that the claims were extinguished by hostilities, whatever the negotiators may have said or done in the mattter.

SENATE.]

French Spoliations prior to 1800.

(JANUARY, 1835. Mr. K. said he had hastily turned to one au- | negotiation determined nothing unless reduced thority on national law, which he believed to treaty and ratified. But when we examine spoke the sentiments of all elementary writers this " offer," what kind of an offer was it? It on the subject. [Mr. K. then read from Vattel, book 11, ch. 13, p. 213.]

"Treaties contain promises that are perfect and reciprocal. If one of the parties fail in his engagements, the other may compel him to fulfil them. A perfect promise confers a right to do so. But if the latter has no other expedient but that of arms to force his ally to the performance of his promises, he will sometimes find it more eligible to cancel the promises on his own side, also, and dissolve the treaty. He has undoubtedly a right to do this, since his promises were made only on condition that the ally should, on his part, execute every thing which he had engaged to perform. The party, therefore, who is offended or impaired in those particulars which constitute the basis of the treaty, is at liberty to choose the alternative of either compelling a faithless ally to fulfil his engagements, or of declaring the treaty dissolved by his violation of it. On such an occasion, prudence and wise policy will point out the line of conduct to be pur

sued."

was an offer which, if accepted by the French Government, would have brought them eight or nine millions of dollars in debt! It is said

we offered five millions of francs for a release from the stipulations of the 11th article of the treaty of 1778, which guaranteed to France her West India islands; and three millions for the privilege of her privateers secured by the 17th article. The better to understand the value of this offer, said Mr. K., let us look to the instructions which preceded it, and with an evident reference to which it was made. These instructions say: "On the part of the United States, instead of troops or ships of war, it would be convenient to stipulate for a moderate sum of money, or quantity of provisions, at the option of France. The provisions to be delivered at our ports in any future defensive war," &c. It was the opinion of our cabinet at that time, extended to a defensive war, and no treaty that the guarantee in the 11th article only renewing it on any other than this construction It cannot be necessary, said Mr. K., to insist | would have been ratified by the United States. that the United States possess the same rights This offer, then, was to renew the mutual guaron this subject with other independent nations; antee, but at the same time to settle its conand he presumed it would not be denied that struction and its value. For the privileges the reasons set forth in the act for dissolving under the 17th article we should have paid three the treaty are perfectly true, and constitute a millions, for those privileges were needed by legal justification of the measure. It might us in our commercial relations with England. safely be submitted to the Senate as an original But the five millions were contingent upon a question, whether France had not, by her vio- future defensive war. This part of the arrangelation of the treaty, justified its nullificationment was as valuable to one party as the other, by us? The author just quoted, said Mr. K., on another page, cites Grotius to prove that "every article of a treaty carries with it a condition, by the non-performance of which the treaty is wholly cancelled." I ask Senators, then, said Mr. K., whether France did not first violate the treaty? That she did so, is the very first position established by them. And here the advocates of the bill found themselves in this strange predicament: That their first position to establish a claim against France proved at the same time that the United States were not responsible for it. Mr. K. would not dwell longer on this branch of the subject. He considered the treaty clearly cancelled, as well by the acts of France as by its nullification by the United States for sufficient causes. He therefore concluded that, on the 30th of September, 1800, the United States were not bound by treaty stipulations to France, and therefore could have received no consideration for the release of the claims in question.

But it is said that the treaty stipulations were valuable at the date referred to, because the American negotiators offered for them 80,000,000 francs; and one would be led to think, said Mr. K., from the confidence with which gentlemen refer to this offer, that they had some thing almost equivalent to a promissory note of the Government for at least this amount. He had already remarked that these offers in

and in fact the contingency had not yet happened, which would have justified the claim. So then we see this valuable offer, said Mr. K., was an offer of three millions of francs, certain, and five millions contingent, that we might receive fifty millions certain, by way of indemnities. Well might we propose to renew the treaties on such terms. It was not very surprising that France did not accept the generous offer.

Mr. K. said it only remained to inquire whether there was any just cause of complaint against the Government because the attitude it assumed towards France may have released these claims. To admit this would allow individuals to control the policy of nations. If these claims were so released, it was only one of those individual sacrifices constantly made to State policy, in the necessary operations of Government. We had done every thing that could be reasonably required to secure their claims. We had spent large sums in missions and negotiations before we resorted to hostile measures, which were, of course, attended with heavy expense. Perhaps, said Mr. K., if we were to enter into a strict account with these claimants, we have spent more money in pursuit of their claims than the amount at which they are estimated, without computing the blood of our citizens, which may be estimated beyond millions of treasure. It is for this, among other

JANUARY, 1835.]

French Spoliations prior to 1800.

[SENATE.

reasons, said Mr. K., that war always relin- treaty stipulation to France, a release from quishes the claims for which it is declared. which would afford a consideration for the The blood of a single citizen satisfies millions claims. Claims and treaties, he said, had been of debt.

extinguished, and no act had ever been done by the treaty-making power in this country to revive them. These views he thought an entire answer to the claims.

the picture, whilst rich insurers, underwriters, and speculators, in great numbers, lay back, concealed in its more remote and deepening shades.

The attitude which the United States assumed then was necessary to the permanent policy and honor of the country; and all private interests must yield to it. In fact, said Mr. K., it has As to the nature of these claims, said Mr. K., been clearly shown by the Senator from New which had been already referred to, he must Hampshire, (Mr. HILL,) that their claims, under say they were not such as appealed strongly to no circumstances, would ever have been worth our sympathies. There were few, it was said, one cent. It would be recollected that we did in the hands of the original losers, and they get the promise, in the treaty of 1800, of in- were mostly in the hands of insurance comdemnity for all prizes not definitively con-panies and underwriters. These, said Mr. K., demned. Did Bonaparte pay these claims for are the weakest of all possible claims. It was which we held his bond in the treaty? Not at known that, in those days, profits were enorall, sir. Not a dollar of them would he pay to mous, and increased by the risk, which was us; and we never should have got a dollar from known to be great; and the risk and profit him, even for these acknowledged indemnities, regulated the premiums, which were also exhad not Louisiana been forced, as it were, to cessively high. If, then, the loss should be auction, to prevent it from falling into the hands returned, the insurer was enriched by high of the English. And not even then, sir, if we premiums, whilst he had the loss returned to had not been cheated out of the amount by him. This he thought a tolerably fair business French diplomacy, by which it was gratuitously for insurers. We are told, to be sure, of paid by ourselves, and ten millions besides."widows and orphans," who await the tardy Bonaparte told his minister to take fifty mil-justice of Government. He thought it likely lions of francs. He obtained eighty, with the there might be some, and some very rich ones, stipulation that twenty millions were to be too. The widows and orphans of the original deducted to satisfy indemnities under the treaty losers, however, he expected, were few in numof 1800. Bonaparte was delighted at the bar-ber, and only thrust forward in the foreground of gain; but mark what he said to Marbois, his agent, when the treaty was reported to him. "I would that these twenty millions be paid into the treasury. Who authorized you to part with the money of the State!" He was reminded that he still would get ten millions more than he asked, besides satisfying the Americans. "Ah, 'tis true," said he, "the treaty does not leave one any thing to desire. Sixty millions for an occupation that would not, perhaps, last a day," &c. Is it likely, then, inquired Mr. K., that when he had uniformly refused to satisfy what he had solemnly promised to pay "for captures not definitively condemned," that he would have paid for captures every one of which had been condemned, and for which any treaty stipulation had been refused? Sir, said Mr. K., the claims were not worth a mill in the dollar, at any time. Bonaparte pay such claims? No, sir. He, with his drum-headed justice and gunpowder administration, robbed everybody and paid nobody. If these views be just, said Mr. K., however the claims may have been released, the claimants lost nothing, for France never would have paid any thing for these claims, every one of which had received the condemnation of her tribunals in some form or other, whether rightly or not. In the last treaty we had to exclude all cases condemned, however just our complaints of the proceedings under which the condemnations were made.

Mr. K. concluded, then, that France owed no part of these claims on the 30th September, 1800, which she ever would have paid, or that, in strictness, could be insisted on. That the United States, on the same date, were under no

Mr. K. said he had been unable to bring his mind to the support of this bill. It was but right, however, that he should confess, in conclusion, (although he could not say he was prejudiced,) he had a powerful weight of presumptive evidence to get rid of before he could look into details to get at the original merits of the claim. He said it might be safely assumed that no Government in the world was more just to the claims of its citizens than that of the United States; and if, at any time, a claim was not allowed when pressed upon it, the refusal was a strong circumstance against it. This claim had been before Congress for thirty-four years, and had not yet got through both houses of Congress. And during a portion of that period it was known that we were not looking out for ways and means to defray the expenses of Government, but actually looking out for ways and means to absorb an apprehended surplus. I would say, then, (said Mr. K.,) that, if this claim was refused by Government from 1800 to 1824, it might reasonably be put down as doubtful. If from 1824 to 1832, we might put it down as very doubtful; and if passed through the generous year of 1832 without being allowed, we might with much reason venture to consider it desperate, and unworthy the attention of any tribunal or Government. He had not, however, depended entirely upon these strong circumstances against the claims, but had listened attentively to the speeches for and against them, and had revived his recollection

French Spoliations prior to 1800.

[JANUARY, 1835. of the most material historical facts upon which | nations immediately gave rise to the question they rested, and his first unfavorable impres- how far this guarantee was obligatory upon the sions were fully confirmed, and he should vote United States? Whether we were bound by it against the bill. Though he fully concurred in to protect France on the side of her American the sentiments of the Senator from South Caro- possessions against any hostile attack of Great lina, that if, notwithstanding the age and Britain, and thus become involved as subalterns amount of the claims, they were really just, in a war in which we had no concern or interest and the honor of the Government were involved whatever? Here, sir, we come to the point at in withholding them, the appropriation should once; for if it should appear that we were not be made, if it took the last dollar in the treas-bound by this guarantee to become partics to ury, and forced us even to make new contributions to satisfy it.

JANUARY, 1835.]

French Spoliations prior to 1800.

[SENATE.

In consequence of the opinions of his cabinet acts of Congress authorizing hostilities, and by concurring with his own sentiments, President proclamation of the President to the same Washington issued a proclamation of neutrality, effect; it was abolished on account of its violadisregarding the guarantee, and proclaiming tion by France; on account of those depredathat we were not bound by any preceding tions which this bill calls upon us to make good. treaties to defend American France against By those very acts of Congress we sought satisGreat Britain. The wisdom of this measure is faction for these very claims; and, having done apparent. He wisely thought it was not pru- so, it was too late afterwards to seek fresh satisdent our infant republic should become ab-faction by demanding indemnity. There was war, sorbed in the vortex of European politics, and sir, as the gentleman from Georgia has clearly therefore, sir, not without long and mature shown-war on account of these spoliations, deliberation how far this treaty of guarantee was obligatory upon us, he pronounced against it; and in so doing he pronounced against the very bill before us; for the bill has nothing to stand upon but this guarantee; it pretends that the United States is bound to pay for injuries inflicted by France, because of a release from a guarantee by which the great Washington himself solemnly pronounced we were not bound! What do we now behold, sir? We behold an array in this House, and on this floor, against the policy of Washington! They seek to undo his deed; they condemn his principles; they call in question the wisdom and justice of his wise and paternal counsels; they urge against him that the guarantee bound us, and what for? What is the motive of this opposition against his measures? Why, sir, that this bill may pass; and the people, the burden-bearing people, be made to pay away a few millions, only a few millions, sir, in consideration of obligations which, after mature deliberation, Washington pronounced not to lie upon us!

I think, sir, enongh has been said to put to rest forever the question of our obligations under this guarantee. Whatever the claims may be, it must be evident to the common sense of every individual, that we are not and cannot be bound to pay them in the stead of France, because of a pretended release from a guarantee which did not bind us; I say did not bind us, because, to have observed it, would have led to our ruin and destruction, and it is a clear principle of the law of nations, that a treaty is not obligatory when it is impossible to observe it. But, sir, leaving the question whether we were made responsible for the debts of France, whether we were placed under an obligation to atone to our own citizens for injuries which a foreign power had committed; leaving this question as settled, (and I trust settled forever,) I come, sir, to consider the claims themselves, their justice and their validity. And here, sir, the principle of this bill will prove, on this head, as weak and untenable-nay, more-as outrageous to every idea of common sense, as it was on the former head. With what reason, I would ask, sir, can gentlemen press the American people to pay these claims, when it would be unreasonable to press France herself to pay them? If France, who committed the wrong, could not justly be called upon to atone for it, how in the world, sir, can the United States now be called upon for this money? In 1798, the treaty of peace with France was virtually abolished by various

VOL. XII.-36

and when we sought redress by acts of warfare, we precluded ourselves from the right of demanding redress by indemnity. We could not, therefore, justly urge these claims against France, and I therefore demand, sir, how can they be urged against us? What, sir, are the invincible arguments by which gentlemen establish the justice and validity of these claims? For, surely, before we consent to sweep away millions from the public treasury, we ought to hear at least some good reasons. Let me examine their good reasons. The argument, sir, to prove the validity of these claims, and that we are bound to pay them, is this: France acknowledged them, and the United States took them upon herself; that is, they were paid by way of offset, and the valuable consideration the United States received was a release from her pretended obligations! Now, sir, let us see how France acknowledged them. These very claims, sir, were denied, resisted, and rejected, by every successive Government of France! The law of nations was urged against them; because, having engaged in a state of war on the account of them, we had no right to a double redress-first by reprisals, and afterwards by indemnity! Besides, France justified her spoliations on the ground that we violated our neutrality; that the ships seized were laden with goods belonging to the English, the enemies of France, and it is well known, sir, that, in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred, this was the fact, that American citizens lent their names to the English, and were ready to risk all the dangers of French spoliation for sake of the great profits, which more than covered the risk. And, in the face of all these facts, we are told, sir, that the French acknowledged the claims, paid them by a release, and we are now bound to satisfy them! And how is this proved, sir? Where are the invincible arguments by which the public treasury is to be emptied? Hear them, sir, if it is possible even to hear them with patience! When we urged these claims, the French negotiators set up a counter claim, and to obtain a release from this, we abandoned them! Thus, thus it is, sir, that the French acknowledged these claims; and, on this pretence, because of this diplomatic cunning and ingenuity, we are now told that the national honor calls on us to pay them! Was ever such a thing heard of before? Why, sir, if we pass this bill, we shall deserve eternal obloquy and disgrace from the whole American people. France, after repeatedly and perseveringly deny