sums had been thrown away in attempts to remove sand-bars, without any permanent benefit from the expenditure.

Mr. POINSETT, of South Carolina, suggested that there was a great difference between removing obstructions from sand in tide rivers and those where the stream always ran one way. In the former class of streams, the removal of one sand-bar was succeeded by the formation of others; but, in streams like the Mississippi and the upper part of the Ohio, where the water always ran in one direction, the case was very different.

The amendment of Mr. MALLARY, proposing two experiments, was agreed to-ayes 77, noes 71.

Mr. BUCHANAN's amendment, as thus amended, was then put, and carried.

The several other amendments, reported by the Committee of the Whole, were then agreed to. Mr. MCARTHUR then offered an amendment | in the fourth section, to make its commencement read as follows: "And for the purpose of improving the navigation of the Mississippi River, from the mouth of the Missouri to New Orleans, and of the Ohio River, from Pittsburg to its junction with the Mississippi," so as to include the Ohio River in the experiment.

The amendment was agreed to, and the bill, as amended, was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading to-morrow.

Claim of Beaumarchais.

On motion of Mr. TUCKER, of Virginia, the House agreed to take up the report of the committee on the claim of Beaumarchais. The motion was carried-ayes 81, noes 54.

The House went into Committee of the Whole, Mr. CAMPBELL of Ohio in the chair, on that report.

Mr. TUCKER, of Virginia, addressed the Chair

as follows:

Mr. Chairman: It is well known to most of the committee, that Mr. Beaumarchais, in the first years of the Revolution, furnished clothing and military supplies to the United States to the amount of several millions of livres; that his account has been finally settled at the Treasury, and the whole amount paid, except one million of livres, which the accounting officers of that Department contend he received from his own Government, and was one of the nine millions which Louis XVI. gratuitously gave to the United States. It is admitted by the claimants that he did receive a million in behalf of the United States, but they say, and the agents of the French Government say, that it was given him to be expended in secret service money, and that he has satisfactorily accounted for the disbursement of it to his Government, to whom alone he was accountable. From this decision of the Treasury Department, an appeal is made to Congress.

Hitherto, Mr. Chairman, the merits of this claim have hinged upon the fact whether the million in question was received by Mr. Beau

[H. OF R.

marchais, for the purchase of supplies, or not, and, as the arguments adduced on either side of the question are, in the absence of the highest evidence, derived from a great mass of circumstantial testimony, and are comprehended in long and numerous documents, I will beg leave to call the attention of the committee to the most important facts. Such a review will give the necessary information to those who have not found time to read the report, and refresh the memories of those who have.

Early in the year of 1776, Mr. Beaumarchais called on Mr. Arthur Lee, then an agent of the United States, in London, and informed him that the French Government were willing to furnish the United States with supplies to the amount of two hundred thousand louis d'or, which he proposed to transmit through the French West Indies, under color of a commercial transaction. Mr. Beaumarchais soon afterwards returned to Paris, and there made a more special and formal arrangement with Mr. Silas Deane, also an agent of the United States, for the transmission of these supplies; and to give it the appearance of a commercial adventure, and conceal it from the British Government, it was further agreed that tobacco, and other American products, should be remitted to Mr. Beaumarchais.

In pursuance of this arrangement, eight cargoes of military stores, clothing, and other merchandise, were shipped, by Mr. Beaumarchais, to the United States, in the years 1777 and 1778--and, during the same time, France furnished the American Commissioners, who were, at that time, Dr. Franklin, Mr. Lee, and Mr. Deane, with two millions of livres in cash, and they obtained a third from the Farmers General. During the shipment of these supplies, there seemed to have been great uncertainty, on the part of the Commissioners, about the source from whence they were derived. Mr. Lee, judging from what had passed between him and Mr. Beaumarchais, and from the subsequent assurances of the French Minister, always insisted that they were derived principally from the King-while Mr. Deane seemed to think that we were indebted for them solely to Mr. Beaumarchais. On a comparison, however, of their several letters, it is impossible to reconcile the statements of the different Commissioners with one another, or those of the same gentlemen, at different times.

In the year 1778, Mr. Deane was recalled, and Mr. Adams, late President of the United States, was sent to supply his place. In September of that year, the three Commissioners wrote to the Count de Vergennes, then Premier of France, stating their doubts about the source of these supplies, and requested to know of him what part of them had been furnished by Beaumarchais, and what part by the King-that both they and the people of the United States had always believed the greater part of these supplies had been furnished by His Majesty, and that they would discharge the obligation as soon

H. or R.]

as Providence should put it in their power. To this application Mr. de Vergennes answers, that the King had furnished nothing-that he had permitted Mr. Beaumarchais to furnish himself from his arsenals, on condition of replacing the articles, and that he would, as to these articles, interpose to prevent the United States from being pressed for immediate payment. This correspondence was transmitted to America, and in the following year, Congress directed their President, Mr. Jay, to write to Mr. Beaumarchais, acknowledging the debt and promising payment. From that day to this, he has stood upon the books of the Treasury as a creditor for the whole amount of these supplies, and payments were made him from time to time. Besides the remittances in tobacco, and other domestic products, equal to about 10 per cent. of the value of the supplies, bills were drawn in his favor, on our Commissioners in France, for between two and three millions of livres, payable in one, two, and three years.

In the year 1782, Mr. Deane returned to France, and made a settlement with Mr. Beaumarchais, by which the balance due to him was about nine hundred thousand dollars. This settlement, however, was not ratified by Congress, because it was said Mr. Deane had no authority to make one; and because, I presume, Congress did not approve it. But in 1784, Mr. Barclay, who was appointed our Consul General to France, was vested with authority to make a settlement with Mr. Beaumarchais, subject to the ratification of Congress. He accordingly made one, differing not materially from the settlement since made at the Treasury, but it did not receive the confirmation of Congress. Probably this settlement would have been ratified, if a circumstance had not come to light, which is a curious one, as well in the history of diplomacy, as in the life of that distinguished man, Dr. Franklin. In the year 1786, on a settlement of the account of Mr. Grand, our banker in Paris, it was discovered that he had given credit but for eight millions received from the French Government by way of gratuity, instead of nine, which, in a treaty dated three years before, Dr. Franklin had acknowledged to have received. Dr. Franklin, on being informed of the variance, applied to Mr. Grand for an explanation, who, in turn, applied to the Count de Vergennes, but he refused to state to whom the million in question was paid; and that, as it was paid out of the Royal Treasury on the 10th June, 1776, (which was before Dr. Franklin arrived in France, and before Mr. Grand became the American banker,) a copy of the receipt for this million could not be necessary for their exoneration. It was then conjectured by Dr. Franklin that Mr. Beaumarchais had received this million. In 1788, a committee of three members of Congress (of which Mr. Arthur Lee was the chairman) had the subject of Mr. Beaumarchais' accounts referred to them for settlement; and, in their report, by not allowing many of his claims for

[MAY, 1824. commission, insurance, and other charges, and charging him with some supposed losses,—they made him a debtor to the United States to a large amount.

After the adoption of the new constitution, Mr. Beaumarchais, complaining of the injustice that has been done him, renewed his application to the Government; and, in 1793 a settlement of his accounts was made by the Auditor, under the superintendence of Mr. Hamilton, on more liberal, and it appears to me more correct principles, by which a balance was found due to him of upwards of two millions of livres. But the report recommends that payment should be suspended until some further explanation should be given of the "lost million," as it was often called. But, in the following year, Mr. Gouverneur Morris, as Minister from this country to France, applied to the Minister for Foreign Affairs for information relative to the million that remained unaccounted for, and, by a welltimed compliment, succeeded in obtaining the receipt for this million advanced in June, 1776, by which it appeared to have been paid to Mr. Beaumarchais.

In the following year, Mr. Beaumarchais wrote a long and eloquent memorial on the subject of his claim, in which he insisted that he had rendered an account to his own Government of the money he had received from it. But the coincidence of sums and dates furnished such strong circumstantial evidence against him, that he was held chargeable at the Treasury for the million he had received in June, 1776. Äfter his death, (which took place about 1799,) the claim was renewed, in behalf of his representatives, in 1802, by Mr. Petion, the Chargé d'Affaires from France; and in 1805, by Mr. Turreau, the Minister Plenipotentiary, who then stated, for the first time, that, on an examination of the archives of his Government, it had been discovered that the million received by Mr. Beaumarchais in June, 1776, had been paid him for a secret political service. On the last application, the subject was referred to a committee of this House, who, after charging Mr. Beaumarchais with the million in question, reported a balance of about forty-one thousand dollars, which was paid him, with interest. In the succeeding year, Mr. Turreau again pressed the claim on the notice of the Government, and stated that the million had been paid for a secret political service, but not for the purchase of supplies. The subject was not then acted on by the House. Since that time it has been repeatedly brought before Congress, and from first to last the memorial of the present claimants has been referred to six different committees, exclusive of that of the present year-three of whom reported in favor of the claim, and three against it.

On the question whether Mr. Beaumarchais received the million, of June, 1776, for the purchase of supplies, or not, (the point on which the committee chiefly differed, there is much circumstantial evidence on both sides. The fol

MAY, 1824.]

[H. OF R.

But, on the other hand, there is the solemn declaration of Mr. de Vergennes that the King had furnished nothing. He certainly was not warranted in saying the King had furnished no supplies, if he had furnished money to purchase supplies. But, again: there can be no doubt but Mr. Beaumarchais must have been held accountable to his Government for this million, for whatever purpose it was put into his hands. But if it was intended as douceurs for persons about the Court, or to procure intelligence, or to bribe foreign agents, or for any of those purposes for which secret service money is usually employed, it is said, and it seems not improbable, that the vouchers in such cases are destroyed. The evidences of such details they might wish to withhold, not only from the world, but from their successors. But there could be no reason to destroy the vouchers, if they related merely to the purchase of supplies. The absence, then, of all vouchers of the particulars of disburse- | ment, affords some evidence that the money was expended for one purpose and not for the other. On weighing this conflicting evidence, I am free to admit, Mr. Chairman, that there is a preponderance of testimony that Mr. Beaumarchais received the million in dispute, for the purchase of supplies; and, if France had been passive on the occasion, or, if we had paid any valuable consideration to her for this million, I should think we were justified in charging Mr. Beaumarchais with that amount. But, when it is recollected that we received these supplies immediately from Mr. Beaumarchais, have settled the account upon our own terms, that the million which we claim as a credit was paid, not by us, but by France, as an act of bounty, and that the French Government insists that this bounty was used for another purpose when these things are recollected, it does seem to me, that we are precluded from entering into a contest with France on this subject; or, in other words, that we cannot, consistently with our honor or self-respect, pay off an undisputed debt, with a doubtful and disputed gift. On this occasion, Mr. Chairman, I cannot recognize one rule of morality for the nation, and another for individuals. I would pursue the same course in public as in private life; and, as an individual, I never could seek to give the bounty of a benefactor a direction which he objected to, for

The whole of the present difficulty has grown out of the mistake of Dr. Franklin, in the treaty of February, 1783. When he signed that treaty, suppose he had been aware that but eight millions of livres had actually been received, and that he had said to the Count de Vergennes: "You call on me to acknowledge the receipt of nine millions, as the gift of your Government, while I know only of eight; show me how the other million was used for our benefit, and I will freely acknowledge that too;" if, in answer to this, the Count de Vergennes had said, what his successors have said, that the million was used for a "secret political service," can it be believed that Dr. Franklin would have hesitated to receive the assurance, and to sign the treaty which he actually did sign? If he would not, there would have been no ground for the present dispute. But, let us suppose that he would not have been content with the simple assurance of the French Minister, then either that Minister must have given him satisfactory evidence concerning the disposition of the doubtful million, or he would have acknowledged only eight millions, in either of which cases Mr. Beaumarchais's claim is indisputable. Assuredly, if our agent had signed a treaty under a mistake, as he himself states, that mistake should be rectified with the French Government, which should either give us a satisfactory explanation, or hold us bound in gratitude but for eight millions, neither of which can affect the claim of Beaumarchais.

Mr. Chairman, we ought to be consistent with ourselves, with regard to the declarations of the French Government. When Monsieur de Vergennes declared to our Commissioners, in September, 1778, that the military supplies were furnished solely by Mr. Beaumarchais, we acquiesced in that assurance, and required no further proof. Again: Mr. Gallatin, in his late correspondence with the Duke de Richelieu, Minister of Foreign Affairs in France, stated, that if the French Government would make an explicit negative declaration, that the million paid to Mr. Beaumarchais, in June, 1776, was not applied to the purchase of supplies, the difficulty with the accounting officers of the Treasury would have been_removed. And, although the answer of the Duke de Richelieu may be considered as somewhat equivocal, yet that which Mr. Turreau had made in 1807, was as positive and explicit as it could be. Had this declaration been made the year before, it would seem, from Mr. Gallatin's letter, the

H. OF R.] million would not have been deducted from Beaumarchais's account; and, it having been made since, the same consequence should follow. On every ground, then, Mr. Chairman, I am free to say I would vote at once for an appropriation to the whole amount of this claim, whatever may be my private opinion of the

source whence Mr. Beaumarchais derived the

million; it being certain that he did not derive it from us, and that we have used the supplies which it purchased. But, as our citizens have claims against France for spoliations on their commerce to a large amount, (probably twenty times as much as this claim,) and the French

Government has itself introduced Mr. Beau

marchais's claim into the negotiation, I think we may adjust the whole together, without any dereliction of national justice or honor, and I therefore hope the committee will adopt the resolution for that purpose offered by the committee.

When Mr. TUCKER had concluded

re

Mr. DWIGHT called for the reading of the port of the committee of this House in 1814, (and of which committee Mr. LOWNDES was chairman,) unfavorable to the claim.

Mr. FARRELLY called for the reading of the opinion of the Attorney-General, Mr. Rodney, in 1807.

Mr. CLAY, in a short speech, expressed a very decided opinion in favor of the claim.

Mr. LIVERMORE took the opposite side, and delivered a few observations in opposition to an allowance of the claim.

Mr. DWIGHT then rose, and went at great length into the whole subject, in reply to Mr. TUCKER and Mr. CLAY, quoting a number of documents in support of his statements, and concluded his speech with offering a resolution that the petitioner have leave to withdraw her petition.

Mr. FARRELLY followed in reply, and spoke at considerable length, to show that the demand was just, and ought to be allowed.

[MAY, 1824.

views in opposition to the claim; and concluded Mr. RANDOLPH, of Virginia, delivered his his speech, by moving that the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again, with

a view that leave be refused.

The question on the committee's rising, being then taken, was decided in the affirmativeayes 105, noes 40.

The question, on granting leave to sit again, was decided in the negative-ayes 60, noes 91. On motion of Mr. RANDOLPH, the report of the committee was then ordered to lie on the

table.

Canal in Indiana.

(Mr. MARVIN in the chair,) on the bill “authorThe House went into Committee of the Whole, izing the construction of a canal through the public lands, in the State of Indiana, between the Wabash and Miami of Lake Erie."

The question recurring, from Saturday, on Mr. CALL's motion to strike out "ninety feet," and insert "one mile," for the extent of the reservation on each side of the canal

Mr. ALEXANDER, of Virginia, objected to the amendment, as trenching on the terms of the cession of the Northwestern Territory by Virginia to the United States, which declare that the whole of that cession shall be a fund for the payment of the common expenditures of the United States.

the

moved that the committee rise.

The committee rose accordingly, and had leave to sit again.

TUESDAY, May 11.
Navigation of Western Rivers.

The engrossed bill making an appropriation for improving the navigation of the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers, was read a third time.

Mr. WILLIAMS, of New York, demanded the yeas and nays on the question of its passage; and they stood, yeas 155, nays 60.

Mr. TEST contended, that giving a mile on each side of the canal did not violate the terms

of the cession more than 90 feet-it was in the

spirit of that cession, because it enhanced the

Unless

value of all the rest of the lands ceded. this land was given, Indiana would be unable to effect the object. This was the only opportunity, at once, of giving timely aid to the canal, and of enhancing the value of the public lands.

Mr. STEWART, of Pennsylvania, denied that this canal was a local measure, and he stated its effects on the Union at large. He advocated the amendment-and read an extract from the writings of Mr. Fulton on the benefits of canals. He replied, also, to the objections of Mr. ALEXANDER, &c.

Mr. BROWN, of Pennsylvania, thought that, | if the canal would so greatly enhance the value of the public lands, it would be better for the United States to make the canal than to give all the benefit of the work to Indiana. The calculation was, that the canal would cost only $300,000, and they asked land to the value of $500,000. He for one would never consent to give it.

Mr. CALL, Delegate from Florida, spoke in reply, and urged the present low value of the public lands in that quarter as an argument in favor of the bill. All that was proposed to be given would, at present value, amount only to $35,000. The additional value would arise from the enterprise and industry of the State of Indiana. He replied to the arguments of Mr. ALEXANDER, and dwelt at some extent on the value of this line of water communication, and the facility of making the canal.

Mr. SHARPE, of New York, thought the only question was, whether this was the proper time to engage in the undertaking. He wished farther information on this point, and expressed some apprehensions of the danger of the precedent

Mr. RANKIN replied, and explained the facts of the case, and repeated and confirmed the arguments he had before urged.

Mr. JENNINGS called for the reading of the memorial of the Legislature of Indiana on this subject. It was read accordingly.

Mr. JENNINGS stated the topography of the country through which it was proposed to cut this canal. He adverted to the opinion of General WASHINGTON, in favor of this and other Western communications. He went at considerable length into a discussion of the objections from the terms of the Virginia cession, and of the practicability and general importance of the

Mr. SHARPE thought the grant in the amendment very large, and the time for completing the work too great. This measure would be superseded, moreover, by the general plan for internal improvements. He thought it was enough, at present, to provide for surveys, as had been already done.

The question on the amendment moved by Mr. CALL, for giving a mile on each side the the canal, being then taken, was decided in the negative.

Canal in the Territory of Florida.

The committee then took up a bill to authorize the Territory of Florida to open a canal through the public lands; and, having gone

[H. OF R.

through it, reported the latter bill, which was ordered to a third reading, and asked and obtained leave to sit again on the former. And then the House adjourned.

WEDNESDAY, May 12.

Inland Trade between Missouri and New Mexico. Mr. Scort laid the following resolution on the table, for consideration to morrow, viz:

Resolved, That the President of the United States be requested to communicate to this House any information which he may possess, in relation to the intercourse and trade now carried on between the people of the United States (and particularly the people of the State of Missouri) and the Mexican provinces; how, and by what route that trade or intercourse is carried on; in what it consists; the distances, &c. ; the nations of Indians through which it passes; their dispositions, whether pacific or otherwise; the advantages resulting, or likely to result, from that trade or intercourse.

Indiana Canal.

The House went into Committee of the Whole, (Mr. CAMPBELL, of Ohio, in the chair,) on the bill to authorize the State of Indiana to open a canal through the public lands; and the question recurring from yesterday on the amendment granting ninety feet of land on each side of the proposed canal, it was agreed to.

The blank in the second section was so amended, as to require the survey to be finished within three, and the canal to be finished within twelve years.

THURSDAY, May 13.

Public Lots in Washington.

The following report was yesterday made by Mr. BRENT, of Louisiana:

The committee appointed by virtue of a resolution of the House of Representatives, of the 4th day of March, 1824, have had the subject which that resolution proposes under consideration, and submit the following report, viz: A letter from J. 5th of May, 1824, by which it appears that the gross Elgar, Commissioner of the Public Buildings, dated amount of the sales of the public lots, in Washington city, as made by the Commissioners and Superintendent, was six hundred and eighty-nine thou sand four hundred and forty dollars, eleven cents, subject to a deduction for losses, occasioned by failures of purchasers, the amount of which has not been ascertained. The committee have not been able to obtain information from the books of the Commissioner of the Public Buildings, of the number of public lots sold, when sold, by whom, to whom, and for what price each lot; what part of the purchase money has been paid, and the exact balance due. To obtain this information, would require more time than probably remains of the present session of Congress, as the Commissioner of the Public Buildings states that it could not be done in less than two months.

As to the disbursements which were made by the late Samuel Lane, Commissioner of the Public Buildings, the committee find that a balance of $22,961 77 was due by the late Samuel Lane, Com