otherwise have been instrumental in obtaining such indemnities. Upon the whole view of the case, the committee submit it to the House to determine, whether the government of the United States be, in any respect, bound to indemnify the memorialists; and whether there be any ground for discrimination between the cases of losses sustained before the Acts of 28th of May, 1798, the 7th of July, 1798, and the 9th of July, 1798, and cases of losses sustained after those periods.'

The acts of Congress here alluded to, are those authorising the capture of French vessels of war hovering on our coasts, and repealing the treaty of alliance of 1778. Their bearing on this question will presently be the subject of a few remarks.

It will be perceived, from the paragraph we have cited from the report of the committee, and which is the only portion of the report from which the judgment of the committee could be inferred, that the fact of the renunciation of these claims, by our government, is admitted. The committee add the qualification, so far as the government might have been instrumental in obtaining such indemnities.' But there is nothing, that we can perceive, in the facts of the case, to authorise this qualification. The renunciation is unlimited and unconditional. Our government renounced not only its own right to prosecute the claims, but the right of the citizens to prosecute them, on their own account. This report of the committee came before the House, was several times discussed, but never acted upon finally. Efforts were made to procure a resolution, providing for the indemnification of the claimants, and it is understood that the divisions of the House, on this question, were in a considerable degree in accordance with the grand political division of the parties. This was the unavoidable result of the state of political controversy in the nation. The late administration had gone out of power, under the stigma of attachment to England, and hostility to France. The claimants, in their declaration, were obliged to set forth and urge the aggressions of France, and this course of proceeding connected itself too directly with the general questions between the parties, not to produce a strong prejudice against the claim.

In the year 1807, the question was again brought forward by memorials from sundry claimants. These memorials

were referred to a committee of the House, whose brief report was decidedly in favor of the claimants. After referring to the report of the committee of 1802, the committee in 1807 proceed;

'From a mature consideration of the subject, and from the best judgment your committee have been able to form on the case, they are of opinion, that this government, by expunging the second article of our Convention with France, of the 30th of September, 1800, became bound to indemnify the memorialists for those just claims, which they otherwise would rightfully have had on the government of France, for the spoliations committed on their commerce, by the illegal captures made by the cruisers and other armed vessels of that power, in violation of the laws of nations, and breach of treaties then existing between the nations, which claims they were, by the rejection of the said article of the Convention, forever barred from preferring to the government of France for Compensation.'

'Your committee beg leave to decline giving an opinion on the precise time, when those claims ought to be commenced, or on the period for captures, after which the memorialists would not have been entitled to compensation from France, and of course cannot be entitled to indemnity from the United States.'

No relief to the claimants resulted from this report. The subject was revived in 1818, and as the act, by which the claimants were deprived of whatever remedy they could have had of the French government, was performed with the concurrence of the Senate, in the exercise of the treaty making power, memorials from Portsmouth, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Charleston, were addressed to the Senate of the United States, and by them referred to the committee of claims, by whom an unfavorable report was made.

In 1822 an application was made by a few merchants of Baltimore, who addressed their memorial to the House of Representatives, in which body it was referred to the committee of foreign affairs. They reported against the claim, partly on general grounds, and partly on circumstances peculiar to the application in question.

Here it is possible all prosecution of the claims would have ceased, but for two considerations, calculated to stimulate the hopes, and to heighten the sense of wrong of the claimants. One of these considerations respected the denouement of the great tragedy of the French Revolution. It had always been

objected to these claims, that in renouncing them, the government of the United States renounced nothing of value. That the claim was worth nothing, because France would not have paid it; because, after a long and earnest negotiation, all that our commissioners could procure was a consent, on the part of the French, to negotiate further. While Bonaparte or his dynasty subsisted, this language was plausible, and every year rendered it more plausible. But an astonishing revolution had occurred; his throne was prostrated; and the ancient dynasty was restored, by the combined powers of Europe, under a pledge compulsory, if not voluntary, to pay the debts of France. Under this circumstance, claims of old and forgotten obligation revived, as from the dead. The losses of English travellers, in the most lawless periods of the Revolution, the losses sustained by payments in assignats, the nameless and numberless encroachments on property, which signalised that stormy and perplexed crisis in Europe, were all now sternly forced into the account to be liquidated. They had been liquidated and paid. Our citizens alone could not come, and thrust the sickle into this waving yellow harvest of indemnity; their claim had been renounced by their own government. Farther, the government of the United States very properly seized this moment to bring forward the claims. for losses, under the continental system of Napoleon. These claims were, and still are, pressed upon France. They must, they will be liquidated. But the claimants under the old system of plunder and spoliation cannot come in; their government has renounced their claim.

To strengthen the feelings which this contrast excited, the Florida treaty had just been negotiated. The claimants for French spoliations had already seen themselves shut out from the provisions of the Louisiana treaty. They had seen a class of claims, certainly not so binding on the national honor to assert, provided for out of the purchase money of that western world. This postponement of their rights was now repeated upon them. By the Florida treaty, an indemnity was provided for claims, many of them as old as theirs, and few more pressing, and which had as long been prosecuted without hope, and against hope.

These facts produced no little sensation throughout the country, among those interested; and about fifty memorials,

in the Session of 1823, 4, were presented to the Senate of the United States. A step was thereupon taken by this body, which is certainly preliminary to a fair discussion of the subject in Congress, in all its bearings. A call was unanimously made on the President, for all the official papers bearing upon the case. Pending the result of this call, a few memorials were prematurely presented to the House of Representatives, and by them referred to the committee of foreign relations. Considering the train in which things were placed, this was an unfortunate occurrence for the claimants, and doubtless had its origin only in inadvertence. An unfavorable report was made by the committee of foreign relations; but the decision upon it gave way to a resolution for a call, similar to that which had already been made by the Senate.

The lateness of the period at which these calls were made, and the great quantity of papers embraced in it, led to a report of the then Secretary of State, in the month of May, 1824, that the communication of the papers asked for, must be delayed till the following Session. The following Session, that of the presidential canvas, passed off without a renewal of the call; and it remains for the succeeding Congress to pursue the subject, as they shall think expedient. It is not impossible, that such new lights will be thrown upon the subject, by the communication of the papers alluded to, before these remarks are published, as to destroy the little interest they might otherwise possess. Inasmuch, however, as a great mass of documents may possibly come before Congress, we have thought that an analysis of the claim, such as we have now given, would, in any event, not be without its value. We now proceed to examine a few of the arguments, by which these claims have been resisted, by three out of five of the committees to which they have been referred.

The first, and perhaps the most formidable, is, that the United States, after negotiating with France, among other things, on indemnity for these claims, as long as negotiation was of any avail, but entirely without success, resorted to war as the remedy. When such a proposition is advanced, the acts of Congress of 1798 are considered as creating a state of war, and the captures made by our armed ships as acts of war. This, however, can only be adınitted in popular language. Strictly speaking, a state of war did not exist.

No declaration of war, the only instrument by which a state of war can be formally constituted, was made, either by the United States or France. No authority to make reprisals was given to our citizens, a mode by, which a state of war is sometimes indirectly brought on. This is a circumstance of great moment in this argument, because it was by reprisals, that the suffering merchants might have had the opportunity of indemnifying themselves. No captures of merchant vessels were made by our armed ships, and none were authorised to be made. What then was done? Authority was given to capture the armed vessels of France, that might be hovering on our coast, that had committed, or were likely to commit, violations on our commerce; and to recapture our vessels, which had been seized by the French. On the part of the French, not even these measures were retaliated. They had probably never intended to drive us to war; and at this moment the Directory felt weak. They embargoed our ships, but issued no orders for acts of hostility, either on our armed or unarmed vessels. After a few months they went further, and ordered such intimations to be given to Mr Murray, our minister in Holland, as led to the despatch of the second commission, Messrs Murray, Ellsworth, and Davie, by whom a convention, not a treaty, was negotiated.

The mode, in which the affair was prosecuted, shows that peace was considered as not interrupted; the treaty of alliance of 1778 was recognised as still in existence; the French national vessels captured were restored, and those which we bad destroyed, or otherwise disposed of, were paid for. It is true the treaty of 1778 had been formally repealed, or declared not to exist, by an act of Congress. But most of the claims of our merchants rest not on infractions of that treaty, but of the law of nations. The act of Congress could effect nothing against claims already existing, and this is by far the greater part of those in question. Besides, it may well be a question, how far Congress can, by a direct act of legislative power, annul a treaty so as to affect obligations arising under it. At all events, the negotiations recognised no such effect in this act of Congress; they regarded the treaties, both of 1778 and 1788, as in existence, till abrogated by the convention of 1801. In fact, the whole negotiation of the convention VOL. XXII.-No. 50.

20