SENATE.] French Spoliations. These claims of France against the United States arose out of our neglect or refusal, as she alleged, to fulfil the stipulations of treaties. They were, first: the 11th article of the treaty of alliance of 6th February, 1778. This article stipulated the guarantee should be on the part of "the United States to his Most Christian Majesty, the present possessions of the Crown of France in America, as well as those which it may acquire by the future treaty of France." And, secondly, the 17th and 22d articles of the treaty of commerce of the same date. By the first of these articles, the privateers and prizes of France might enter our ports and depart at pleasure, and the privateers and vessels of the enemies of France were excluded from our ports. And the latter article prohibited the privateers of the enemies of France from being fitted out in our ports, and sale of their prizes being made in them, or even provision furnished, more than was necessary for their going to the next port. The importance of the stipulations to France will be readily acknowledged when we remember that she was at war with England; that she had islands in the West Indies to be preserved; that, by having a place of refuge in our ports for her armed vessels, she could greatly harass and injure the very extensive commerce of England in the West Indies; take her vessels and retreat in safety with them to our ports. Our Government, it is well known, determined to maintain a strict neutrality between the contending parties, and refused to France the advantages which these treaties gave her; and this course was the occasion of great complaint, and of a very sharp correspondence between the ministers of France and of this Government. In the course of the negotiation to settle the difficulties between the two nations, our ministers, not being authorized or willing to agree to "the reciprocal engagement of compensation for damages resulting on both sides" from the breach of the treaties, as proposed by France, offered finally, in their letter of the 20th of August, 1800, that the ancient treaties should be renewed andc onfirmed, with certain modifications. These were, that the articles respecting privateers and prizes should be so modified as, upon payment of 3,000,000 francs within seven years, no greater rights than those of the most favored nations should exist. And that the mutual guarantee should, for the future, be considered as fulfilled, by affording aid to the amount of 1,000,000 francs when either party was attacked; and that either party might "exonerate itself wholly from its obligation by paying to the other, within seven years, a gross sum of 5,000,000 francs, in money, or such securities as may be issued for indemnities;" and that "there shall be a reciprocal stipulation for indemnities, and these indemnities shall be limited to the claims of individuals." It will be noticed here that the United States ministers do not offer to France any compensation for the injury to France, as a nation, for the claims respecting the guarantee and the privileges for privateers and prizes for the past. The French ministers, on the 25th of August, say that their proposal to confirm the ancient treaties, and for mutual compensation, "did away all idea of a modification;" and that, as the American ministers had proposed an essential modification of the 17th article, “it is therefore evident that this note refers to the second part of the alternative, which consisted of a new treaty, without indemnity." "The French ministers therefore insist upon the condition, that all stipulation for indemnities be laid aside." They make the following propositions to our ministers: "1st. The ancient treaties shall be continued and confirmed, to have their full force, as if no misunderstanding between the two nations had ever occurred. [DEC. 22, 1834. "2d. Commissioners shall be appointed to liquidate the respective losses. "3d. The 17th article of the treaty of commerce of 1778 shall be continued in full force, with a single addtion, immediately after these words, to wit: And on the contrary, no shelter shall be given in their ports or harbors to such as shall have made prize of the subjects of his Majesty, or of the citizens of the United States, there shall be added if it be not in virtue of known treaties on the day of the signature of the present, and subsequent to the treaty of 1778, and that for the space of seven years.' The 22d article subject to the same reservation as the 17th article. "4th. If, during the term of seven years, the propo sal to establish the 17th and 22d articles be not made and accepted without reserve, the award for indemnities determined by the commissioners shall not be allowed. "5th. The guarantee stipulated by the treaty of allance shall be converted into a grant of succor for two millions. But this grant shall not be redeemable unless by a capital of ten millions.' These proposals not being satisfactory to the Ameri can ministers, the French ministers made, on the 4th of September, 1800, proposals anew: "We shall have the right to take our prizes into the ports of America. "A commission shall regulate the indemnities which either of the two nations may owe to the citizens of the other. The indemnities which shall be due by France shall be paid by the United States. And in return for which, France yields the exclusive privilege resulting from the 17th and 22d articles of the treaty of com merce, and from the rights of guarantee of the 11th article of the treaty of alliance." The American ministers answer on the 6th September, and say these proposals are inadmissible, "the nearest approach to them" is, 1st. The former treaties shall be renewed and confirmed. "2d. The obligations of the guarantee shall be specified and limited as in the first paragraph of their third proposition of the 20th of August. 3d. There shall be mutual indemnity and a mutual restoration of captured property not yet definitely condemned, according to their fifth and sixth propositions of that date. “4th. If, at the exchange of ratifications, the United States propose a mutual relinquishment of indemnity, the French Republic will agree to the same, and in such case the former treaties shall not be deemed obligatory, except under the seventeenth and twenty-second articles of that of commerce, the parties shall continue for ever to have for their public ships of war, privateers, and prizes, such privileges, in the ports of each other, as the most favored nation shall enjoy." The American ministers requested a conference to consider these propositions; and in their journal, under 13th September, they say, "The first and third were agreed to, with some modification of the third as to the rules of evidence, which did not vary its principle." The second and fourth were considered together, as in some measure connected, and, after considerable discussion, the French minis ters said, unless an option perfectly similar and recipro cal was assured to the French Republic, the operation of which would enable her to get rid of the indemnities, by an offer of abandoning the exclusive privileges, they could not agree to it. Here it will be noticed that it was agreed that, upon the former treaties being confirmed, indemnities should be paid, but France would not yield her exclusive rights under the treaties, but by payment being made to our citizens by their own Government, or by a relinquishment of indemnities. Our ministers were not authorized to relinquish the indemnities, or to provide for their payment by the United States; and hence they say, on the 13th September, in their journal, that "being now convinced that the door was perfectly closed against all hope of obtaining indemnities with any modifications of the treaties, it remained only to be determined to attempt a temporary arrangement, which would extricate the United States from the war, or that peculiar state of hostility in which they are at present involved." This is not an allegation that indemnity could not be obtained at all, but only that it could not be obtained without a performance on our part of the obligations into which we had entered by our treaties with France. Here, then, let us contemplate the condition of the negotiation and state of facts admitted by both parties. We have seen that the proposals of the American ministers that the former treaties be confirmed, and that there should be mutual indemnities, were agreed to. But the French ministers would not assent to the Americans only having the right to relinquish the indemnities as a consideration for their discharge from the seventeenth and twenty-second articles of the treaty of commerce. Let it be remembered, that the claims of France cannot be regarded as destroyed by the act of July 7th, 1798, annulling the treaties, even if we admit that one party to a treaty can annul it by a legislative act. Both parties to the treaties admitted their validity until that act of 1798 was passed. For five years before the treaties were declared by the United States to be annulled, France had not had the benefit of the peculiar privileges secured to her. Not that the administration of that day is blamed. It might be wise to refuse to grant these privileges, and rely upon making a proper recompense, or upon finding an excuse for refusing it in the wrongs done to us. Our Government is a parental Government. It was framed and exists for the promotion of the happiness of the people; for the protection and security of the rights and property of the citizens. It was bound by every duty to obtain indemnity for these citizens, if it could do so consistently with its duties to other citizens. It could have obtained compensation for them without imposing any heavier burden upon other citizens than a performance of the duties enjoined by existing treaties. Or it might have obtained indemnity for these classes by causing their losses to be made good by all the citizens; that is, by the nation, as a consideration of a discharge from the treaty stipulations. Was is not just that the consideration for the discharge of the treaty stipulations should be borne by the whole, and not by a portion, and an unfortunate portion of its citizens? This Government cannot plead that it will not obtain an indemnity for its citizens of France, because France had claims against the United States of a national character to a like amount. It should keep the claims of the citizens against France separate from the claims of a national character against itself. If France had claims against the United States, those should have been satisfied by the whole people of the United States; and to make use of such claims against itself as an excuse for not obtaining compensation for losses incurred by a portion of its citizens, is to impose upon that small portion the burden which should be borne by the whole. It is, in effect, to take private property for public uses without just compensation. And if this has been done, the claimants are entitled to a fair compensation. The indemnities were not abandoned by the negotiators, but they postponed the further discussion of the claims, on each side, to a future day, and on the 30th September concluded and signed a treaty, the second article of which is as follows: "ARTICLE 2. The ministers plenipotentiary of the two parties not being able to agree at present respecting the treaty of alliance of the 6th of February, 1778, the trea [SENATE. ty of amity and commerce of the same date, and the convention of the 14th of November, 1788, nor upon the indemnities mutually due or claimed, the parties will negotiate further on these subjects at a convenient time; and until they may have agreed upon these points, the said treaties and convention shall have no operation, and the relations of the two countries shall be regulated as follows." On the 3d of February, 1801, the treaty was ratified by the Senate, "provided the second article be expunged," and by adding an article limiting the operation of the treaty to a term of eight years. On the 31st of July, 1801, it was also ratified on the part of France, agreeing to the limitation, and to "the retrenchment of the second article, provided that by this retrenchment the two States renounce the respective pretensions which are the object of the said article." On the 19th of December following, the treaty was again submitted to the Senate, which "resolved, that they considered the said convention as fully ratified." This is the history of the final discharge of France from all obligation to compensate our citizens for losses. It was effected by the act of this Government, in expunging the second article of the convention, and regarding it as fully ratified, with the express provision annexed by France, that it was a renunciation, by each nation, of its claims. Thus, also, the United States were for ever discharged from the onerous burdens of the ancient treaties, and from all claim of indemnity, for refusing to France the privileges which they secured to her. And at the same time, and by the same act and instrument, these claimants were for ever deprived of obtaining that indemnity from France, which, if these claims had been kept separate, and never had been connected with any subject of national grievance, they most certainly would have obtained. The history of negotiation cannot show a more direct surrender of an admitted claim, as a consideration of the release of an obligation. France always offered to set off one class of claims against the other; the envoys of the United States refused it; the Senate and the French Government agreed to it, and accomplished it. Nor was the right to compensation destroyed by a state of war. Neither nation regarded the right to claim, or the obligation to compensate, as destroyed, on account of an existing war. United States claimed an indemnity as an existing right; and France admitted the claim to be good. It is true that the United States authorized the capture of the vessels of France on the high seas, but they declared it to be only in defence of the persons and property of their citizens. War was not declared by either nation. And, in the convention of 30th September, 1800, the claims on both sides were, by the second article, regarded as subsisting and valid. This would not have been done, if war had destroyed the right to have a future negotiation and compensation. France, in her negotiations, declared, as our envoys say, that her object was to avoid making compensation for these claims, because she would find herself too much exhausted by the war to satisfy them; and yet, anxious as she was, she never insisted upon a discharge, because a state of war had existed. The On the 16th August, 1798, the Executive Directory declare their wish to pursue the friendly habits of France towards a people whose liberty it defended." And, at the same period, the Minister of Marine says: "Our political situation, with regard to the United States citizens, not having as yet undergone any change which can effect the respect due to neutral nations," "no injury should be done to the safety and liberty of the officers and crews of any American vessels." The French ministers, in their letter of the 6th of SENATE.] Lafayette. May, 1800, speak of the "misunderstanding" and "transient misunderstanding." And in their letter of the 11th of August following, the French ministers say "that the treaties which united France and the United States are not broken; that even war could not break them; but that the state of misunderstanding which has existed for some time has not been a state of war, at least on the side of France." By saying the treaties are not broken, the French ministers could not be regarded as intending to say that they had not been in many instances violated, as they had both demanded and yielded to a compensation, as proper for such violations. The Minister of Exterior Relations, (Talleyrand,) in a letter of August 28, 1798, says: "Therefore, it never thought of making war against them, nor exciting civil commotions among them; and every contrary supposition is an insult to common sense." On the part of the United States, it is well known that she always professed and determined to maintain a neutral position. In the instructions to our envoys, 22d October, 1799, it is said, "this conduct of the French Republic would have well justified an immediate declaration of war on the part of the United States; but, desirous of maintaining peace, and still willing to leave open the door of reconciliation with France, the United States contented themselves with preparation for defence, and measures calculated to protect their com merce." The American ministers, in a letter dated 20th August, 1800, speaking of the act of Congress annulling the treaties, say, if it "had amounted to a cause of war, yet, as the wisdom of France reconciled it to peace, its application, on the principle of war, to the extinguishment of claims, would be inexplicable." Many other documents might be adduced to prove the positions which have been taken, but I forbear, my object being only to exhibit sufficient to show the relations of the two nations, and the manner in which these claims were discharged. Does it become the United States now to allege that these claims should not be paid by her, for other and different reasons than those which France used to avoid compensation? France never seriously maintained that the claims were extinguished by war; and how can the United States now introduce such a defence? [DEC. 23, 1834. the claims would amount to more than these sumsFrance was anxious to set off the claims against the stipu lations of the treaty, and the United States declined it, until it was done as before stated. It may be proper to remark that these 619 cases are of an entirely different character, or are alleged to be so, from those for which recompense was obtained under the Louisiana treaty, or under the Florida treaty; and if they do not so prove to be, no compensation can be made by the bill, as it does not provide for such as were provided for under those treaties. Our debt is paid. Compensation has been secured by treaty for all, or nearly all, the injuries which our citizens have suffered from other nations. Can the high character of this nation for doing justice to all, at home and abroad, be maintained without making com pensation for these injuries, which have been the consid eration of procuring for her a discharge from very onerous obligations? If the bill may pass, the only great claim remaining will be satisfied, and the duties of the Government, to do justice to all, will have been fulfilled. If these claims are just, all fear for evil consequences to arise from their allowance may be dismissed. Things are rightly so ordered here, that to do justice to all others is to serve ourselves best. When Mr. SHEPLEY had concluded his remarks, On motion of Mr. POINDEXTER, the Senate went into the consideration of executive business; after which, The Senate adjourned. TUESDAY, DECEMBER 23. Mr. CLAY, from the joint committee, appointed at the last session of Congress, on the subject of the oration contemplated to be delivered commemorative of the life and character of General Lafayette, made a report thereon, concluding with the following joint resolution: Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives, That Wednesday, the 31st instant, be the time assigned for the delivery of the oration by JOHN QUINCY ADAMS, before the two Houses of Congress, on the life and character of General Lafayette; That the two Houses shall be called to order by their respective presiding officers at the usual hour, and the journal of the preceding day shall be read, but all legis As to the amount of compensation, there may not be any very certain and definite proof of it. It appears from a letter of the Secretary of State to a former chair-lative business shall be suspended on that day; man of a select committee, under date of 22d January, 1827, that there were four hundred and forty-four cases then reported to that Department. I am informed that there were 175 cases filed before the commissioners under the Florida treaty, other and different from those comprising the 444 before named, making 619 cases which are known. There are probably others. Five millions, divided among the 619 cases, would give but little over $8,000 to each case as an average. It is probable the average value would be much greater than that That the oration shall be delivered at half-past twelve o'clock, in the hall of the House of Representatives; sum. There is an estimation of losses accompanying 88 out of the 444 cases; the aggregate of which is stated to be $2,235,702 59. If all the cases were to exhibit losses as great as these, the amount of the losses would be more than eleven millions. But it is not supposed that all the cases were so valuable. The amount offered by the United States to France, to be released from the stipulations of the treaties, as we have seen, was 8,000,000 francs. France offered to receive 10,000,000 for the extinction of the guarantee, but would offer no sum for the relinquishment of her exclusive privileges under the treaty of commerce. It may be inferred from this, that both nations considered that That the President of the United States and the heads of the several Departments, the French minister and members of the French legation, all other foreign ministers at the seat of Government, and the members of their respective legations, be invited to attend on that occasion by the chairman of the joint committee; That the President of the United States, the heads of the several Departments, the French minister and members of the French legation, the other foreign ministers at the seat of Government, and the members of their respective legations, and JOHN QUINCY ADAMS, be requested to assemble at half-past twelve o'clock, P. M. in the Senate chamber, and that they, with the Senate, shall be attended by the joint committee to the hall of the House of Representatives; That the galleries of the House, under the direction of its officers, shall be open on that day for the accommodation of such citizens as may think proper to attend. Mr. C., in continuation, observed that a similar report would that morning be made in the other House; and that, as the resolution under which the committee had acted originated there, it was not deemed necessary to proceed further until after some action was had in DEC. 23, 1834.] te that House. French Instructions-Fortifications on the Patuxent, &c. He moved, therefore, that the whole subject be for the present laid on the table; which motion was adopted. FRENCH INSTRUCTIONS. [SENATE. it is known to the Senate that the Chesapeake bay, a deep and navigable water, of easy access, which, with propriety, might be termed an inland sea, and is sufficient to furnish a harbor and anchorage for all the navies of Europe, divides the State in its entire width from Mr. CLAY rose and said: The Senate would recollect south to north, possessing tributary streams on either that that part of the President's message which relates shore, extending in every direction, affording facilities to our foreign affairs was referred to the committee on of annoyance to a naval Power at war with us, not to be that subject shortly after its organization. It was deem-resisted or guarded against by any means within the ed essentially necessary, in order to form a correct judg- reach of the State. ment on the measure recommended by the President, that It is true we have fortifications of great contemplated the instructions transmitted to our diplomatic officers magnitude, when finished, at the mouth of the Chesanear the coast of France, together with the correspond-peake bay, but we are distinctly told by the board of enence that passed between the two Governments since gineers who selected the sites for fortifications in their the 2d of February, 1832, should be submitted to the report, dated the 7th February, 1821, (many of which, if committee, for the purpose of enabling them to form an not all of the first class, are now in the progress of comopinion on the subject. Entertaining this view of the pletion) that those works were not designed for the promatter, a letter was addressed by the chairman of the tection of the State of Maryland, but for the security of committee to the Secretary of State, who very prompt- the public docks, &c. at Norfolk. ly transmitted the documents; but he did so, based upon the condition that they were to be regarded as confidentially communicated. Now, it seemed that the President had recommended a public measure, and that recommend ation had been publicly referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations, and as that committee was to make public the report, they could not recommend any legislative action under the restrictions imposed upon them by the Secretary on transmitting to them the correspondence. That officer, in his letter, intimated that if it should be deemed of importance that these documents should be made public in any contingency, he expected that a call would be made on the Executive in the usual form. It was on that account that he presented this resolution, which called for the documents to which he referred. It would have been his personal wish that the Senate should have adopted the resolution to-day; but, in consequence of an intimation which had been given him by an honorable Senator, that he wished it to lie upon the table one day, he forbore to press it at the present time. Mr. C. then offered the following resolution, which was laid upon the table for consideration until to-morrow: Resolved, That the President be requested to communicate to the Senate (if in his opinion it shall not be incompatible with the public interest) the instructions which have been transmitted from time to time, since the 4th of July, 1831, to the representatives of the United States at the Government of France, relative to the execution of the treaty which was signed on that day be tween the United States and France; and also all the correspondence which had passed, at Washington or at Paris, between the two Governments, respecting the execution of the said treaty. FORTIFICATIONS ON THE PATUXENT, &c. The following resolution, submitted yesterday by Mr. KENT, was considered: Resolved, That the Committee on Military Affairs inquire into the expediency of making an appropriation for the immediate commencement of fortifications on the Pa tapsco, at the city of Annapolis, and at St. Mary's, all deemed essential by the board of engineers, in their report dated the 7th February, 1821, for the security of the cities of Baltimore and Annapolis, and for the protection of the commerce of Chesapeake bay. Mr. KENT then rose and addressed the Chair as follows: The report states "that, in the Chesapeake, the proposed works at the entrance of Hampton roads, have for their object to close this road against an enemy, and to secure the interior navigation between the Chesapeake and the more southern States, and to make sure of a naval place of arms, when the navy of the United States may protect the Chesapeake and the coasting trade; to cover the public docks, &c. at Norfolk, and those which may be established in James river; and to prevent an enemy from making a permanent establishment at Norfolk.' In the same report we are informed that Fort McHenry, the only fort (and that in an inefficient condition) that the large commercial city of Baltimore has to rely on for security and protection, has no influence whatever over an attack by land. Let us read, Mr. President, what the report further states: "At Baltimore, the forts projected at Hawkins's point, and the shoal of Soller's point, cover the harbor; and the last-mentioned work will force an enemy to land, if he intends attacking the town, at a greater distance from it, and will thus prevent him from turning the defensive position which our forces might take against him. The batteries at St. Mary's secure a good station to the vesels of war charged with guarding the Chesapeake, protect an anchorage accessible by vessels of the largest class; and also do the batteries at Annapolis offer a safe asylum to merchant vessels which might find it impossible to reach Baltimore. St. Mary's is not at all defended, and Fort McHenry, at Baltimore, has no influence whatever over an attack by land, and cannot even secure the city and harbor from bombardment. Thus, Mr. President, we are informed by the ablest of engineers, that, to afford any thing like security, either to the city of Baltimore, or Annapolis, or the commerce of the Chesapeake bay, it would be absolutely necessary that the fortifications thus designated should be erected at the mouth of the Patapsco, at Annapolis, and St. Mary's. The resolution I have offered proposes an inquiry, on the part of the Committee on Military Affairs, into the propriety of making an appropriation for the immediate commencement of those works. They are of the 2d and 3d class, and a small appropriation only would be required for their commencement. There is no State in the Union, accessible to a naval force, with a great inlet from the ocean passing directMr. President: I was induced to present the resolu-ly and entirely through her territory, that is so totally tion just read, in consequence of the exposed and de- destitute of any thing like protection as is the State of fenceless condition of the State of Maryland, and the Maryland. The metropolis of the State, where all the tardy manner in which the plan for fortifying our sea- archives of the Government are deposited, might be board has been carried into effect. surprised and captured by a very small force. Its population is inconsiderable, and there is no adequate The situation of the State of Maryland is a peculiar one; defence there. In truth, I might say that there was none that could afford the least protection. The great commercial city of Baltimore must rely for her security, unaided by proper works of defence, upon the bravery and enterprise of her citizens; and although on a late occasion, with great sacrifices, they were equal to her protection, and in the hour of trial may be relied on to achieve any thing within the power of men similarly situated, Congress will not hesitate, I trust, to afford to her such defences as she is justly entitled to, from her position and her commercial importance. I do not pretend to apprehend immediate war-a motive of that sort alone did not actuate me in offering the resolution. But, assuredly, our foreign relations are not of the same pacific character that they have been for many years past. Neither shall I attempt to predict how soon war may occur. It is in time of peace that every wise and prudent Government will prepare for war. In a period of war we shall have no money to apply to the erection of fortifications. We should not have competent engineers to spare, to superintend their construction; they would have other and more urgent duties to perform. We should resort to some miserable expedient, as we have done heretofore-a flotilla, or the sinking of ships in the mouths of our harbors-and which, though ineffectual, would cost us nearly as much as permanent and well-constructed works. I could say much, Mr. President, as to the importance of the city of Annapolis to be possessed by a naval Power at war with us, but I shall forbear for the present, and move the passage of the resolution. The resolution was then adopted. FRENCH SPOLIATIONS. Mr. President: During the short time I have been a member of the Senate, I have discovered that claims preferred to Congress stand a much better chance of success than if preferred to almost any other tribunal. In fact, it has become a matter of general remark, that when a claim on the public is before Congress, success depends less on its justice than on the perseverance with which it is pursued. It is considered little discouragement that a flat denial by one committee is given to a claim; the same claim is frequently, at the same session, preferred in another branch of the Legislature; and if it does not there succeed, it is sure to be followed up at a future session. The value of perseverance is demonstrated in more successful cases than that of Amy Darden's horse, which, after having been brought upon the journals year by year, for at least forty years, was finally paid in the generous year of 1832, when there was so great a desire to get rid of as much money as possible from the treasury, in order that high taxes might be contin ucd, for the benefit of protecting American manufactures! The bill now under consideration proposes to take directly from the treasury the round sum of five millions of dollars; not that five millions of dollars will cover the whole amount that may be claimed, and ten times five millions would scarcely do that, on the principle that certain commutation claims, principal and interest, had been allowed by Congress; and this sum is to be appropriated, in the first instance, for the benefit of "such citizens of the United States, or their legal representatives, as had valid claims to indemnity upon the French Government, arising out of illegal captures, detentions, [DEC. 23, 1834. forcible seizures, illegal confiscations, and condemntions, made or committed before the year 1800.” The claims for which the bill of the Senate proposes indemnity are of more than thirty-three years' standing. Although, during the whole time since 1802, they have been before Congress, it is very remarkable that it was not until the year 1826 a report in favor of their validity could be obtained in either House of Congress. Such an instance of claim, just or unjust, it is believed, is not presented on the face of your journals since the adoption of the constitution. That a portion of these claims was originally justly due from France will not be disputed; nor will it be dispu ted that American citizens had equally valid claims to indemnity from the British Government, "arising out of illegal captures, detentions, forcible seizures, illegal condemnations, and confiscations, made or committed" under her orders in council, prior to the existence of the late war of 1812. The declaration of war by the Amer ican Congress, in June, 1812, precluded the prospect of all remuneration from Great Britain for her illegal seizures, as did the declaration of war against France by successive acts of Congress-of May 28, July 7, and July 9, 1798-authorizing the capture of French armed vessels, and declaring such vessels to be good and lawful prize, and declaring the treaties theretofore concluded with France to be no longer obligatory on the United States. But however just might have been these claims on France, I flatter myself that it may be made abundantly apparent to every impartial and disinterested man, that the Government of the United States, in its own behalf, ought not to be, and is not, responsible for the payment of one cent of them. In prosecuting the negotiation which terminated in the treaty of September 30, 1800, the United States accomplished more for American citizens than could ever have been reasonably anticipated; they saved an "immense property of our citizens then depending before the French council of prizes." The payment of even this was resisted by the French Government until it was provided for, to be paid by the United States themselves, in the Louisiana treaty. Urging these claims, appeals are made to motives of benevolence and humanity; they are said to belong to widows and orphans. Very little, it is apprehended, is due to considerations of this kind. In ninety-nine cases out of a hundred it is believed that these claims will go to swell the profits of speculators who have conditionally engaged to pay for them a mere trifle, or to add to the estates of a few men who have made immense wealth as underwriters, or to the enormous gains of ensurance companies. Of the cases of seizure provided for in this bill, it is not probably going too far to presume that in nineteen of every twenty cases the real owner of the property was not the loser. Although the commerce of the country, soon after the war in Europe consequent on the French revolution, was much interrupted by seizures and spoliations, both by Great Britain and France, yet the period from 1793 to 1800 is often referred to by our merchants and ship-owners as being the time, of all others, when they made most money. The Americans not only disposed of their produce at the highest rate, but they were to a great extent the carriers of the belligerent nations. The temptations presented in the facilities for making money were so great that it is not to be wondered at if the Americans frequently violated that strictly neutral character which should have protected their commercial intercourse and relations. Liable to constant capture or detention, it is presumed that few, very few, American ships went to sea without ample ensurance against loss by capture or otherwise. The greatly-increased profits of American business war |