honorable gentleman is friendly to the administration, and to the head of the Post-Office Department; and it was, therefore, hardly to be expected that he should show great zeal in the prosecution of this inquiry. Yet I think, Sir, we had a right to expect from him, not only his opinion on all the charges, but also some degree of patriotic indignation against lawless acts, which he admits to be lawless. Take, for example, the first resolution of the committee, which declares that the Postmaster-General has borrowed money on the credit of the United States, without any authority of law. The honorable chairman says he admits the truth of this charge. Admits it? But why does he content himself with admitting it? Does he not regard it as a gross violation of duty? Does he not think it an alarming thing, that the Postmaster-General should borrow half a million. of dollars in order to cover up the deficiencies of the department, and that he should keep this loan concealed for years from the knowledge of Congress? As the head of a committee charged to inquire into abuses, and this enormous abuse having been discovered, can the honorable member justify himself by simply saying he admits its existence? Has he no reproof, no word of censure, for such a flagrant violation of law? Has he no disapprobation to express, no complaint to enter, in such tones that the administration shall hear them? No man denies the fact, and none undertakes to defend it. What then? Is the department still to go on in its career, and nothing to be done, any more than if nothing had been discovered? If there were nothing else in the whole report, if that charge stood alone, I cannot conceive how any man can doubt that the department ought to be immediately and thoroughly reformed. The country, if I mistake not, will call for such reformation. As to upholding the administration of the department, with such charges against it proved and admitted, it is more even than the spirit of party devotion can accomplish.

Again, Sir, the third resolution distinctly declares that a practice prevails in the post-office of granting contracts on bids, which vary from the advertisements, and of altering contracts after they are made and accepted; a practice which destroys all competition, and enables the department to give all contracts to favorites. Is this charge denied or admitted? I have not heard the honorable member, the chairman, deny it. Does

he acknowledge it to be true? If he does, why does he not tell us, in a plain and direct manner, that this too is an enormous abuse, and ought to be reformed? Is such a practice to pass without reprehension? While its existence is detected, discovered, and acknowledged, is there to be no rebuke of it?

Then there is the sixth resolution, which declares that extra allowances have been made to contractors, which are unreasonable and extravagant, and out of all proportion with the increase of service. Is this true?

The eleventh resolution alleges, in general terms, that the department is deeply in debt, and its affairs in disorder. I have heard no man deny this. None can deny it. The department is deeply in debt; its affairs are disordered, greatly disordered. These extra allowances appear to have lost their original character. Instead of being extraordinary, they have become ordinary. Contractors calculate upon them. The probability of an extra allowance enters into their motives when they make bids. Indeed, it seems of very little importance what bids they make. They are, in fact, paid just what sums the Postmaster-General sees fit to pay; and they are generally very well satisfied. From the frequency and the amount of these extras, and the constant changing of contracts, it is quite evident that all fair competition among contractors is done away.

Mr. President, the country is awakened to these abuses in the post-office, and it will not be, and ought not to be, satisfied without a thorough examination, and an honest and real reform. I give my hearty thanks to the committee for their zeal and industry. They have had a laborious winter, and are likely to have a laborious summer. Let them go on fearlessly, and the country will appreciate their services.

Let them explore all the sources of corrupt patronage; let them bring all abuses into the broad light of day. Let them inquire into the number of removals of postmasters, with the alleged causes of such removals. Let them inquire at whose bidding honest and faithful men have been removed, to make way for partisans. Let them ascertain whether it be true that persons here may go into the post-office, and require the removal of postmasters by dozens; and whether the Postmaster-General, as a matter of course, complies with such requisitions.

Mr. President, it is due to the committee, it is due to the Sen

ate itself, it is due to this highly important subject, that we should express an opinion on some of the leading resolutions reported by the committee. If some are more doubtful than the rest, or require further examination, let them remain for further consideration. But on the plain, acknowledged, notorious cases, let us come to a vote. Let us show the country that we are in earnest. Let us begin with the first, with that which respects the borrowing of money from banks, without authority of law, or even the knowledge of Congress; and let us see whether any one individual member of the Senate is prepared to withhold from that proceeding his vote of censure.

Mr. Benton thought the Senate ought to defer, for the present, taking a vote on the resolutions. He said he had had no opportunity of carefully examining the reports, and therefore knew but little of their contents. However, he must say that he had found things in them at which he felt much mortified. Mr. Webster continued:

I think, Sir, the best course, that which is called for by the importance of the subject, and which is due as well to the committee as the Senate, is this, to take a vote on the first resolution. I will then move to lay the others upon the table, until such time as gentlemen shall have had an opportunity of examining them, when I will move that they be taken up.

The question was then taken on agreeing to the first resolution reported by the Post-Office Committee, in the following words:

"Resolved, That it is proved, and admitted, that large sums of money have been borrowed at different banks by the Postmaster-General, in order to make up the deficiency in the means of carrying on the business of the Post-Office Department, without authority given by any law of Congress; and that, as Congress alone possesses the power to borrow money on the credit of the United States, all such contracts for loans by the Postmaster-General are illegal and void."

And the question on agreeing to this resolution was decided unanimously in the affirmative.

FRENCH SPOLIATIONS PRIOR TO 1800.*

MR. PRESIDENT,- Before proceeding to the discussion of the bill, I feel it to be my duty to take notice of an occurrence such as does not ordinarily draw from me any remarks in my place in the Senate. Some time in March last, there appeared in a newspaper published at Albany, in the State of New York, a letter, purporting to have been written to the editor from Washington, in which the writer charges me with having a direct personal interest in these claims. I am ashamed to say, that this letter was written by a member of Congress. The assertion, like many others which I have not felt it to be my duty to take any notice of, was wholly and entirely false and malicious. I have not the slightest interest in these claims, or any one of them. I have never been conferred with or retained by any one, or spoken to as counsel, for any of them, in the course of my life. No member of the Senate is more entirely free from any personal connection with the claims than I am. It has been the pleasure of the Senate, on several occasions, to place me on a committee to which these petitions have been referred. I have on those occasions examined the subject with a desire to acquit myself conscientiously of my duty, by exercising my best judgment upon the claims, as questions of mere right and justice.

At the last session, an honorable member of the Senate, now in a public capacity at St. Petersburg,† introduced a bill for the relief of the petitioners, and moved the appointment of a com

A Speech delivered in the Senate on the 12th of January, 1835, on the Bill granting Indemnity to Citizens of the United States for French Spoliations on American Commerce prior to 1800.

Mr. Wilkins of Pennsylvania.

mittee, declining himself to be a member of that committee. Without any wish of mine, and, indeed, without my knowledge, for I was not then in the city, the Senate was pleased to place me at the head of that committee. I thought it my duty then to introduce the bill which is now again under consideration.

This is no party question; it involves no party principles, affects no party interests, seeks no party ends or objects; and as it is a question of private right and justice, it would be flagrant wrong and injustice to attempt to give to it, anywhere, the character of a party measure. The petitioners, the sufferers under the French spoliations, belong to all parties. Gentlemen of distinction, of all parties, have at different times maintained the justice of the claim. The present bill is intended for the equal relief of all sufferers; and if the measure shall become a party measure, I for one shall not pursue it. It will be wiser to leave it till better auspices shall appear.

The question, Sir, involved in this case is essentially a judicial question. It is not a question of public policy, but a question of private right; a question between the government and the petitioners; and, as the government is to be judge in its own case, it would seem to be the duty of its members to examine the subject with the most scrupulous good faith, and the most solicitous desire to do justice.

There is a propriety in commencing the examination of these claims in the Senate, because it was the Senate which, by its amendment of the convention of 1800, and its subsequent ratification of that convention, and its recognition of the declaration of the French government, effectually released the claims as against France, and for ever cut off the petitioners from all hopes of redress from that quarter. The claims, as claims against our own government, have their foundation in these acts of the Senate itself; and it may certainly be expected that the Senate will consider the effect of its own proceedings on private right and private interests with that candor and justice which belong to its high character.

It ought not to be objected to these petitioners, that their claim is old, or that they are now reviving any thing which has heretofore been abandoned. There has been no delay which is not reasonably accounted for. The convention, by which the claimants say their claims on France for these captures and con