violation of the law of nations and in breach of treaties then existing between the two nations; which claims they were, by the rejection of the said article of the convention, forever barred from presenting to the government of France for compensation."

Claims thus authoritatively stated at that early day could not be overcome by any sleep.

It is true that these claims were pressed with less constancy and determination at the beginning of the century than at a later day. But there are two sufficient reasons for the change. First, the evidence on which they were founded was less generally known at the beginning than afterwards. It was only by the communication to Congress in 1826, under the administration of John Quincy Adams, of the ample materials accumulated in the archives of the Department of State, that the true strength of the case was fully revealed. Here, in one full volume, was the documentary history of the whole double transaction, showing, at once, the original obligation of France, and the substituted obligation of the United States, re-enforced by the associations of our own revolutionary history. But a more sufficient reason for this change may be found in the fact, that for some time in the early part of the century our country was still laboring under the pressure of the revolutionary debt. As this pressure was gradually removed, and the national resources became more apparent, these claims were naturally urged with more confidence, until, on the final extinction of that debt, they occupied the attention of the best minds of both houses of Congress. No single question in our history has been the subject of such a succession of able reports. Whether counted or weighed, these reports are equally excepttional. They are no less than forty-one in number, twenty-three in the Senate and eighteen in the House. Among the eminent characters whose names they bear are Edward Livingston, John Holmes, Edward Everett, Daniel Webster, Caleb Cushing, Charles J. Ingersoll, John M. Clayton, and Rufus Choate. Out of the whole number only three have been adverse, one in the Senate and two in the House. But the three adverse reports were evasive only, being made prior to the communication to Congress of the decisive evidence on the subject. The thirty-eight reports made since that communication have been all in favor of the claims.-(See Appendix A.)

Resolutions of thirteen States, being the original number which declared independence, have been presented to Congress between the years 1832 and 1858 in favor of these claims. Some States, not content with one series, have repeated their resolutions, and accompanied them with elaborate arguments. They all tend to the point that it is the bounden duty of Congress, without further delay, to make provision for the payment of these claims; and senators and representatives are earnestly requested to use their best exertions to secure the passage of a law of Congress to carry this obligation into effect.

Memorials and petitions to Congress have, from the beginning, testified to the sleeplessness of these claims. On the 5th of February, 1802, only forty-six days after the promulgation of the convention of 1800, they began to be presented, and they have continued to be presented from that early day down to this very session of Congress, making, in all, three thousand two hundred and ninety-three. Of these, fourteen hundred and eighty-nine were in the Senate; eighteen hundred and four in the House. They are chiefly from the original sufferers, their executors, administrators, assigns, widows and heirs, residing in the large seaports from which the despoiled vessels originally sailed; but there are some from all parts of the country where the representatives of the original sufferers have been carried in the vicissitudes of life; all of which may be seen in an annexed list of these petitioners -(See Appendix B.)

Two several times-once under President Polk, and again under President Pierce-both houses of Congress have concurred in passing an act for the relief of these claimants; but this tardy justice was arrested by presidential veto.

In the face of this constant succession of reports, resolutions of State legislatures, and petitions, constituting not only a "continual claim," but a continual recognition of the claim-the whole crowned by two several acts of Congressit is impossible to attribute any negligence to the claimants, or, indeed, any indulgence of inordinate confidence. They have had reason to believe that they should be successful. Under such circumstances, the lapse of time, which is sometimes urged against them, becomes an argument in their favor; for it adds constantly recurring testimony to their merits, besides a new title from the disappointment to which they have been doomed. Claims beginning thus early, and thus sustained, may be ancient, but they cannot be stale.

ACTUAL POSSESSORS OF THE CLAIMS ARE NOT SPECULATORS.

(2.) There is a trivial remark, which is rather a slur than an objection, which may justify a moment's attention. It is sometimes said that these claims are no longer the property of the original sufferers or their representatives, but that they have passed, like a fancy stock, into the hands of speculators. This remark, if it had foundation in fact, has not much in equity. It would be hardly creditable for a government to take advantage of its own procrastination, and refuse just compensation because the original sufferer had been compelled by unwelcome necessity to discount his claims.

From the nature of the case, such claims, being unliquidated, do not readily pass from hand to hand, but remain in the original custody, as has become apparent in ample experience. Precisely the same reflection was cast upon the claims against Spain, Denmark, and Naples, and indeed it has been cast upon long outstanding claims generally, until it is now a common-place of sarcasm. But the records of the successive commissions which have liquidated foreign claims afford its best refutation. These commissions required in every case proof of property; but the evidence disclosed that the original sufferers or their legal representatives, including heirs, executors, assignees of bankrupts, persons having a lien for advances, or underwriters, possessing in law and equity the same right as the original sufferers, were the actual possessors of the larger part of these interests. There is no reason to suppose that it would be otherwise in the case of the claims for French spoliations. On the contrary, it is believed that they remain substantially where they were when the losses were incurred. The great speculator has been death; for there are few of these claims that have not passed through his hands. But such a transfer cannot draw the title into doubt, especially when we consider the character of the petitioners, whose names are spread on the journals of Congress. It is well known that, in many families, these claims still exist as heir-looms, transmitted by ancestral care in the full confidence that, sooner or later, they would be recognized by the government.

PRESENT CONDITION OF THE COUNTRY NO REASON AGAINST PAYMENT OF JUST DEBTS.

(3.) But it is sometimes suggested that, even assuming the meritorious character of these claims, yet, in the present condition of the country, they ought to be postponed. Looking at the practical consequences of this suggestion, it will be found that, though plausible in form, it is fatal in substance. Any postponement must inevitably throw these claims into direct competition with those which are now accumulating on account of losses during the rebellion, having in their favor the gushing sympathies of our time. It is not unjust to human nature to say, that the distant in time, like the distant ir space, are too often out of mind. If the earlier claims are just, they ought not to be exposed to the hazards of any such competition, when feeling will be stronger than reason. Indeed, from the

probability of future claims, whose shadows already begin to appear, the argument is strengthened for the immediate satisfaction of those which now exist, especially when we consider their character and origin.

The resources of the people are now tasked to put down the rebellion which slavery has aroused. Let nothing be stinted. But there is another duty which must not be forgotten. The just debts of the republic must be paid to the last dollar. Here also nothing must be stinted; and the glory of the one will be kindred to the glory of the other. The republic will have new title to love at home and to honor abroad when, with one hand, it overcomes the rebellion now menacing its existence, and with the other does justice to ancient petitioners, long neglected, constituting the only remaining creditors left to us on account of the war of independence.

STATEMENT OF THE QUESTION.

Therefore, putting aside all preliminary objections to these claims, whether on account of their alleged antiquity, the character of the actual possessors, or the present condition of the country, the committee insist that the existing obligations of the United States must be determined according to principles of justice and the facts of the case. The hearing is now, as if there had been no lapse of time since the obligations accrued, and as if no war now existed to task the country. Is the money justly due? To answer this important question the subject must be considered in detail, under several heads ·

First. The claims of citizens of the United States against France, founded on spoliations of our commerce, as seen in their origin and history.

Secondly. The counter-claims of France, founded on treaty stipulations and services rendered in the war of independence, as seen also in their origin and history.

Thirdly. The convention of 1800 and the reciprocal release of the two governments, by which the "individual" claims of the petitioners were treated as a set-off to the "national" claims of France.

Fourthly. The assumption by our government of the obligations of France, so that the United States were substituted for France, and became liable to these petitioners as France had been liable.

After considering these heads in their order, it will be proper to review the objections which have been alleged against the liability of the United States: (1,) from the semi-hostile relations between France and the United States anterior to the convention; (2,) from payments under the Louisiana treaty; (3,) from payments under the convention with France of 1831; (4,) from the act of Congress, annulling the early treaties with France; (5,) from the early efforts of our government to obtain from France the satisfaction of these claims; and (6,) from the desperate character attributed to these claims at the time of their abandonment.

The question of "just compensation" will present itself last: (1,) in the advantages secured to the United States by the sacrifice of these claims; (2,) in the value of the losses which the claimants suffered; and (3,) in the recommendation of the committee.

The subject is of such importance from the magnitude of interests involved, and from its historic character, that the minuteness of this inquiry will not be regarded as superfluous.

THE CLAIMS OF AMERICAN CITIZENS IN THEIR ORIGIN AND HISTORY.

I. The history of French spoliations on our commerce is a gloomy chapter, where a friendly power, assuming the name of republic, shows itself fitful, passionate, and unjust. This conduct seems more remarkable when it is considered that only a short time before, France, while yet a kingdom, had contributed treas

ure and blood to sustain our national independence. And yet an explanation may be found in the extraordinary temper of the times. By a generous uprising of the people the kingdom was overthrown, and then, as the alarmed royalties of Europe intervened, the head of the monarch was flung to them as a gage of battle. The gage had been accepted in advance, and all those royalties, by successive treaties, entered into coalition against France. The fleets of England came tardily into the great contest, but their presence gave to it a new character, and enveloped the ocean as well as the land in its flames. Naturally, the growing commerce of the United States suffered from both sides, but especially from France, driven to frenzy by the British attempt, in the exercise of belligerent rights, to starve a whole nation.

The feelings of France were still further aroused against the United States, when, instead of friendship and alliance, she was encountered by the proclamation of neutrality launched by Washington, on the 22d April, 1793, where he undertook, in behalf of the United States, "to adopt and pursue a conduct friendly and impartial towards the belligerent powers." Here, according to France, was a failure not only of that proper sympathy which was due from us, but even of solemn duties pledged by those early treaties which helped to secure our national independence. This failure, which became afterwards the occasion of counter-claims on the United States, contributed at once to the exasperations of the time.

An early apology, addressed to the American minister at Paris by the French gevernment, attests the spoliations which had begun, and discloses also their indefensible character, unless the common language spoken by the English as well as ourselves was a sufficient excuse. Here are the exact words:

66

war.

We hope that the government of the United States will attribute to their true cause the abuses of which you complain, as well as other violations of which our cruisers may render themselves guilty in the course of the present It must perceive how difficult it is to contain within just limits the indignation of our marines, and, in general, of all the French patriots, against a people who speak the same language and having the same habits as the free Americans. The difficulty of distinguishing our allies from our enemies has often been the cause of offences committed on board your vessels; all that the administration could do is to order indemnification to those who have suffered, and to punish the guilty"-(French Spoliations, Ex Doc., 1826, p. 70.)

Thus heedlessly did these spoliations begin. But the national convention associated itself by formal act with this injustice, when, on the 9th May, 1793, only seventeen days after the proclamation of neutrality, but before it had arrived in France, a retaliatory decree was issued in response to the British attempt at starvation-arresting all neutral vessels laden with provisions, and destined to an enemy's port. It was not disguised even in the decree itself that it was a violation of the rights of neutrals; but the necessity of the case was pleaded, and indemnity was promised to the neutrals who might suffer by its operation. But, unwilling to await the dilatory performance of this promise, our minister at Paris remonstrated at once against the application of the decree to vessels of the United States. Amid vacillations of the national assembly, which at one time seemed to relent under the urgency of our minister, the decree continued to be enforced against the property of American citizens. Here were spoliations, confessed at the time to be in violation of neutral rights, which still rise in judgment.

As the intelligence of these spoliations reached the United States our whole commerce was fluttered. Merchants hesitated to expose their ships and cargoes to such cruel hazards. It was necessary that something should be done in order to enlist again their activity. At this stage the national government came forward voluntarily with an assurance of protection and redress. This was in a circular letter, dated 27th August, 1793, when Mr. Jefferson, the Secretary of State, in the name of the President, used the following language: "I have

it in charge from the President to assure the merchants of the United States concerned in foreign commerce or navigation that our attention will be paid to· any injuries they may suffer on the high seas or in foreign countries contrary to the law of nations and existing treaties, and that, on their forwarding hither well authenticated evidence of the same, proper proceedings will be adopted for their relief." French Spoliations, Ex. Doc., 1826, p. 217.) This circular was adopted by President Washington, in his message of December 5, 1793, where he speaks as follows: "The vexations and spoliations understood to have been committed on our vessels and commerce by the cruisers and officers of some of the belligerent powers appeared to require attention. The proofs of these, however, not having been brought forward, the description of citizens supposed to have suffered were notified that, on furnishing them to the Executive, due measures would be taken to obtain redress of the past, and more effectual provisions against the future."-(French Spoliations, Ex. Doc., 1826, p. 253.) Here, then, was a double promise from the national government, under the influence of which our merchants continued their commerce, and ventured once more upon the ocean. Their government had tempted them, and, on the occurrence of "injuries on the high seas," these good citizens, according to instructions, made haste to forward to the Department of State the "well-authenticated evidence of the same." But their grandchildren and great-grandchildren are waiting even now the promised redress.

Thus, at the very beginning of these spoliations, they seem to have been recognized in their true character by both governments. The national convention, even in its arbitrary edict, confessed them. The administration of Washington, in its solemn assurance of protection, confessed them also. The offspring of wrongful violence in the heat of war, they were regarded on each side as indefensible. Ministers, in this respect, reflected the sentiments of the two governments. Fauchet, the French minister at Philadelphia, in a communication to the Secretary of State, under date of March 27, 1794, expressed himself in this manner: "If any of your merchants have suffered any injury by the conduct of our privateers, (a thing which would be contrary to the intention and express order of the republic,) they may, with confidence, address themselves to the French government, which will never refuse justice to those whose claims are legal."(French Spoliations, Ex. Doc., 1826, p. 263.) Mr. Morris, our minister at Paris, under date of March 6, 1794, thus gave vent to his feelings : "These captures create great confusion, must produce much damage to mercantile men, and are a source of endless and well-founded complaint. Every post brings me piles of letters about it from all quarters, and I see no remedy. In the mean time, if I would give way to the clamors of the injured parties, I ought to make demands very like a declaration of war."-(Ibid., p. 77.) But M. Buchot, the French commissioner of foreign relations, addressed to Mr. Morris the following soothing words, under date of July 5, 1794: “ The sentiments of the convention and of the government towards your fellow-citizens are too well known to you to leave a doubt of their disposition to make good the losses which circumstances inseparable from a great revolution may have caused some American navigators to experience."-(Ibid., p. 77.) Such at that day was the testimony of ministers on both sides.

Meanwhile, Genet, the French minister at Philadelphia, had been dismissed by President Washington on account of a presumptuous interference in our affairs, especially hostile to the proclamation of neutrality; and John Jay had repaired to London to negotiate the treaty of 1794, which goes under his name. Both these events added to the exasperation of France. But Mr. Monroe, who had taken the place of Mr. Morris at Paris, was full of sympathy for the new republic, even when he frankly discharged his unpleasant duties. In a communication to the committee of public safety, under date of October 18, 1794, he exposed a "frightful picture of difficulties and losses, equally injurious to