late Secretary of the Treasury (Mr. Taney) had never contended that the bank had no right to appoint a committee of exchange-that such a committee was appointed by all banks. In this last declaration the gentleman is correct. All banks have a committee to purchase exchange. But Mr. T. would admonish the gentleman to beware. He would find himself condemning

him whom he wished to defend. Mr. Taney's

States before the period mentioned. Secondly
That these acts were committed by such or-
ders and under such circumstances, as gave the
sufferers a right to indemnity from the French
government. Thirdly-That these claims had
been annulled by the United States for public
considerations.
Fourthly-That this annul-

very language is quoted in the report. He places ment gave these sufferers a just claim upon the the violation of the charter distinctly on the United States for the amount of their losses. ground that the business of the bank is intrust-Upon these four assumptions the bill resteded to three members on the exchange committee, when the charter requires that not less than seven shall constitute a board to do business. His very words are given in the report, so that he cannot be misunderstood; and the commentary of the committee consists in a mere narrative of facts. Little more is done than to give

facts, and the honorable senator takes the alarm; and, in his effort to rescue the late Secretary from their influence, plunges him still deeper into difficulty.

The senator had loudly talked of the committee having been made an instrument of, by the bank. For himself, he renounced the ascription. He would tell the honorable senator that he could not be made an instrument of by the bank, or by a still greater and more formidable power, the administration. He stood upon that floor to accomplish the purposes for which he was sent there. In the consciousness of his own honesty, he stood firm and erect. He would worship alone at the shrine of truth and of honor. It was a precious thing, in the eyes of some men, to bask in the sunshine of power. He rested only upon the support, which had never failed him, of the high and lofty feelings of his constituents. He would not be an instrument even in their hands, if it were possible for them to require it of him, to gratify an unrighteous

motive."

CHAPTER CXVII.

FRENCH SPOLIATIONS BEFORE 1800.

some of them disputable in point of fact, and others in point of law. Of these latter was the assumption of the liability of the United States to become paymasters themselves in cases where failing, by war or negotiation, to obtain redress they make a treaty settlement, surrendering or abandoning claims. This is an assumption contrary to reason and law. Every nation is bound of their citizens; but the government is the to give protection to the persons and property judge of the measure and degree of that protection; and is not bound to treat for ever, or to fight for ever, to obtain such redress. After having done its best for the indemnity of some individuals, it is bound to consider what is due to the whole community-and to act accordingly; and the unredressed citizens have to put up with their losses if abandoned at the general settlement which, sooner or later, must terminate all national controversies. All this was well stated by Mr. Bibb, of Kentucky, in a speech on these French claims upon the bill of the present year. He said:

"He was well aware that the interests of individuals ought to be supported by their governments to a certain degree, but he did not think that governments were bound to push such interest to the extremity of war-he did not admit that the rights of the whole were to be jeoparded by the claims of individuals-the safety of the community was paramount to the claims of private citizens. He would proceed to see if the interests of our citizens had been

neglected by this government. These claims have been urged from year to year, with all the earnestness and zeal due from the nation. But they went on from bad to worse, till negotia

tions were in vain. We then assumed a hostile

THESE claims had acquired an imposing aspect by this time. They were called "prior" to the year 1800; but how much prior was not shown, and they might reach back to the establishment of our independence. Their payment by the position. During the year '98, more than United States rested upon assumptions which twenty laws were passed by Congress upon this constituted the basis of the demand, and on very subject-some for raising troops--some for which the bill was framed. It assumed, first-providing arms and munitions of war--some for That illegal seizures, detentions, captures, condemnations, and confiscations were made of the vessels and property of citizens of the United

We

fitting out a naval force, aud so on. Was this
neglecting the claims of our citizens?
went as far as the interests of the nation would
permit. We prosecuted these claims to the

very verge of plunging into that dreadful war wards under Washington's administration, this then desolating Europe. The government then claim of indemnity, no longer resting upon a issued its proclamation of neutrality and non- claim of the sufferers, but upon a treaty stipuintercourse. Mr. B. next proceeded to show that France had no just claims upon us, aris-lation-upon an article in a treaty for their ing from the guaranty. This guaranty against benefit-was abandoned to obtain a general adFrance was not considered binding, even by vantage for the whole community in the comFrance herself, any further than was consistent mercial treaty with Great Britain. As these with our relations with other nations; that it was so declared by her minister; and, moreover, claims for French spoliations are still continued that she acknowledged the justice of our neu- (1850), I give some of the specches for and trality. These treaties had been violated by against them fifteen years ago, believing that France, and the United States could not surely they present the strength of the argument on be bound by treaties which she had herself vio- both sides. The opening speech of Mr. Weblated; and consequently, we were under no obligation on account of the guaranty. Mr. B. ster presented the case: went on to show that, by the terms of the treaty of 1800, the debts due to our citizens had not been relinquished:-that as the guaranty did not exist, and as the claims had not been abandoned, Mr. B. concluded that these claims ought not to be paid by this government. He was opposed to going back thirty-four years to sit in judgment on the constituted authorities of that time. There should be a stability in the government, and he was not disposed to question the judgment of the man (Washington) who has justly been called the first in war and the first in peace. We are sitting here to rejudge the decisions of the government thirtyfour years since."

"He should content himself with stating very briefly an outline of the grounds on which these claims are supposed to rest, and then leave the subject to the consideration of the Senate. He, however, should be happy, in the course of the debate, to make such explanations as might be called for. It would be seen that the bill proposed to make satisfaction, to an amount not exceeding five millions of dollars, to such citizens of the United States, or their legal representatives, as had valid claims for indemnity on the French government, rising out of illegal captures, detentions, and condemnations, made or committed on their property prior to the 30th day of September, 1800. This bill supposed two or three leading propositions to be true.

seizures, detentions, captures, condemnations, "It supposed, in the first place, that illegal and confiscations, were made, of the vessels and property of the citizens of the United States, before the 30th September, 1800.

"It supposed, in the second place, that these acts of wrong were committed by such orders and under such circumstances, as that the sufferers had a just right and claim for indemnity from the hands of the government of France.

This is well stated, and the conclusion just and logical, that we ought not to go back thirty-four years to call in question the judgment of Washington's administration. He was looking to the latest date of the claims when he said thirty-four years, which surely was enough; but Washington's decision in his proclamation of neutrality was seven years before that time; and the claims themselves have the year 1800 for their period of limitation-not of commencement, which was many years before. This "Going on these two propositions, the bill assumed one other, and that was, that all such doctrine of governmental liability when aban- claims on France as came within a prescribed doning the claims of citizens for which indem- period, or down to a prescribed period, had been nity could not be obtained, is unknown in other annulled by the United States, and that this countries, and was unknown in ours in the ear- gave them a right to claim indemnity from this lier ages of the government. There was a case in fairness and equity, on the part of this govgovernment. It supposed a liability in justice, of this abandonment in our early history which ernment, to make the indemnity. These were rested upon no "assumption" of fact, but on the grounds on which the bill was framed. the fact itself; and in which no attempt was That there were many such confiscations no one made to enforce the novel doctrine. It was the mentioned in the first section of the bill. That doubted, and many such acts of wrong as were case of the slaves carried off by the British they were committed by Frenchmen, and under troops at the close of the Revolutionary War, such circumstances as gave those who suffered and for which indemnity was stipulated in the wrong an unquestionable right to claim indemtreaty of peace. Great Britain refused that in-nity from the French government, nobody, he supposed, at this day, would question. There demnity; and after vain efforts to obtain it by were two questions which might be made the the Congress of the confederation, and after-subject of discussion, and two only occurred to

him at that moment. The one was, 'On what but an historical monument, going back to the ground was the government of the United States first treaty with France in 1778, and coming answerable to any extent for the injury done to down through our legislation and diplomacy on these claimants?' The other, 'To what extent was the government in justice bound?' And French questions to the time of its delivery. A first-of the first. Why was it that the gov- separate chapter is due to this great speech; ernment of the United States had become re- and it will be given entire in the next one. sponsible in law or equity to its citizens, for the claims for any indemnity for the wrongs committed on their commerce by the subjects of France before 1800?'

"To this question there was an answer, which, whether satisfactory or not, had at least the merit of being a very short one. It was, that, by a treaty between France and the United

CHAPTER CXVIII.

OF NEW-YORK.

States, bearing date the 30th of September, FRENCH SPOLIATIONS: SPEECH OF MR. WRIGHT, 1800, in a political capacity, the government of the United States discharged and released the government of France from this indemnity. It went upon the ground, which was sustained by all the correspondence which had preceded the treaty of 1800, that the disputes arising between the two countries should be settled by a negotiation. And claims and pretensions having been asserted on either side, commissioners on the part of the United States were sent out to assert and maintain the claims of indemnity which they demanded; while commissioners appointed on the part of France asserted a claim to the full extent of the stipulations made in '78, which they said the United States had promised to fulfil, and in order to carry into effect the treaty of alliance of the same date, viz.: February, 1778.

"The negotiation ultimately terminated, and a treaty was finally ratified upon the terms and conditions of an offset of the respective claims against each other, and for ever; so that the United States government, by the surrender and discharge of these claims of its citizens, had made this surrender to the French government to obtain for itself a discharge from the onerous liabilities imposed upon them by the treaty of 1778, and in order to escape from fulfilling other stipulations proclaimed in the treaty of commerce of that year, and which, if not fulfilled, might have brought about a war with France. This was the ground on which these claims rested.

"Mr. Wright understood the friends of this bill to put its merits upon the single and distinct ground that the government of the United States had released France from the payment of the claims for a consideration, passing directly to the benefit of our government, and fully equal in value to the claims themselves. Mr. W. said he should argue the several questions presented, upon the supposition that this was the extent to which the friends of the bill had gone, or were disposed to go, in claiming a liability on the part of the United States to pay the claimants; and, thus understood, he was ready to proceed to an examination of the strength of this position.

"His first duty, then, was to examine the relations existing between France and the United States prior to the commencement of the disturbances out of which these claims have arisen; and the discharge of this duty would compel a dry and uninteresting reference to the several treaties which, at that period, governed those relations.

"The seventeenth article of the treaty of amity and commerce of the 6th February, 1778, was the first of these references, and that article was in the following words:

"Art. 17. It shall be lawful for the ships of war of either party, and privateers, freely to carry whithersoever they please the ships and goods taken from their enemies, without being obliged to pay any duty to the officers of the admiralty or any other judges; nor shall such

"Heretofore, when the subject had been before Congress, gentlemen had taken this view of the case; and he believed there was a report pre-prizes be arrested or seized when they come to sented to the Senate at the time. which set forth that the claims of our citizens, being left open, the United States had done these claimants no injury, and that it did not exempt the government of France from liability."

Mr. Wright, of New-York, spoke fully against the bill, and upon a close view of all the facts of the case, and all the law of the case as growing out of treaties or found in the law of nations. His speech was no only a masterly argument,

or enter the ports of either party; nor shall the searchers or other officers of those places search the same, or make examination concerning the lawfulness of such prizes; but they may hoist sail at any time and depart and carry their prizes to the places expressed in their commissions, which the commanders of such ships of war shall be obliged to show; on the contrary, to such as shall have made prize of the subjects, no shelter or refuge shall be given in their ports people, or property of either of the parties; but if such shall come in, being forced by stress of

directly from the places of the enemy aforemen tioned to neutral places, but also from one place belonging to an enemy to another place belonging to an enemy, whether they be under the jurisdiction of the same prince, or under several. And it is hereby stipulated that free ships shall also give a freedom to goods, and that every thing shall be deemed to be free and exempt which shall be found on board the ships belonging to the subjects of either of the confederates, although the whole lading, or any part thereof, should appertain to the enemies of either, contraband goods being always excepted. It is also agreed, in like manner, that the same liberty be extended to persons who are on board a free ship, with this effect, that although they be ene mies to both or either party, they are not to be taken out of that free ship, unless they are soldiers and in actual service of the enemies.

weather, or the danger of the sea, all proper means shall be vigorously used, that they go out and retire from thence as soon as possible.' "This article, Mr. W. said, would be found to be one of the most material of all the stipulations between the two nations, in an examination of the diplomatic correspondence during the whole period of the disturbances, from the breaking out of the war between France and England, in 1793, until the treaty of the 30th September, 1800. The privileges claimed by France, and the exclusions she insisted on as applicable to the other belligerent Powers, were fruitful sources of complaint on both sides, and constituted many material points of disagreement between the two nations through this entire interval. What these claims were on the part of France, and how far they were admitted by the United States, and how far controverted, will, Mr. W. said, be more properly considered "The restrictions as to articles to be held bein another part of the argument. As connected, tween the two nations as contraband of ? however, with this branch of the relations, he Mr. W. said, were to be found in the twentythought it necessary to refer to the twenty-fourth article of this same treaty of amity and second article of the same treaty, which was in commerce, and were as follows: the following words:

"Art. 22. It shall not be lawful for any foreign privateers, not belonging to subjects of the Most Christian King, nor citizens of the said United States, who have commissions from any other prince or State in enmity with either nation, to fit their ships in the ports of either the one or the other of the aforesaid parties, to sell what they have taken, or in any other manner whatsoever to exchange their ships, merchandises, or any other lading; neither shall they be allowed even to purchase victuals, except such as shall be necessary for their going to the next port of that prince or State from which they have commissions.'

"Mr. W. said he now passed to a different branch of the relations between the two countries, as established by this treaty of amity and commerce, which was the reciprocal right of either to carry on a free trade with the enemies of the other, restricted only by the stipulations of the same treaty in relation to articles to be considered contraband of war. This reciprocal right is defined in the twenty-third article of the treaty, which is in the words following:

666

Art. 23. It shall be lawful for all and singular the subjects of the Most Christian King, and the citizens, people, and inhabitants of the said United States, to sail with their ships with all manner of liberty and security, no distinction being made who are the proprietors of the merchandises laden thereon, from any port to the places of those who now are or hereafter shall be at enmity with the Most Christian King, or the United States. It shall likewise be lawful for the subjects and inhabitants aforesaid to sail with the ships and merchandises aforementioned, and to trade with the same liberty and security from the places, ports, and havens of those who are enemies of both or either party, without any opposition or disturbance whatsoever, not only

"Art. 24. This liberty of navigation and commerce shall extend to all kinds of merchandises, excepting those only which are distinguished by the name of contraband, and under this name of contraband, or prohibited goods, shall be comprehended arms, great guns, bombs, with fuses and other things belonging to them, cannon ball, gunpowder, match, pikes, swords, lances, spears, halberds, mortars, petards, grenades, saltpetre, muskets, musket ball, helmets, breastplates, coats of mail, and the like kinds of arms proper for arning soldiers, musket rests, belts, horses with their furniture, and all other warlike instruments whatever. These merchandises which follow shall not be reckoned among contraband or prohibited goods; that is to say. all sorts of cloths, and all other manufactures woven of any wool, flax, silk, cotton, or any other material whatever; all kinds of wearing apparel, together with the species whereof they are used to be made; gold and silver, as well coined as uncoined: tin, iron, latten, copper, brass, coals; as also wheat and barley, and any other kind of corn and pulse: tobacco, and likewise all manner of spices; salted and smoked flesh, salted fish, cheese, and butter, beer, oils, wines, sugars, and all sorts of salts; and, in general, all provisions which serve for the nourishment of mankind, and the sustenance of life; furthermore, all kinds of cotton, hemp, flax, tar, pitch, ropes, cables, sails, sail cloths, anchors, and any part of anchors, also ships' masts, planks, boards, and beams, of what trees soever; and all other things proper either for building or repairing ships, and all other goods whatever which have not been worked into the form of any instrument or thing prepared for war by land or by sea, shall not be reputed contraband, much less such as have been already wrought and made up for any other use all which shall be wholly reckoned among free goods; as likewise all other merchandises and

things which are not comprehended and particularly mentioned in the foregoing enumeration of contraband goods, so that they may be transported and carried in the freest manner by the subjects of both confederates, even to the places belonging to an enemy, such towns or places being only excepted as are at that time besieged, blocked up, or invested.'

Mr. W. said this closed his references to this treaty, with the remark, which he wished carefully borne in mind, that the accepted public law was greatly departed from in this last article. Provisions, in their broadest sense, materials for ships, rigging for ships, and indeed almost all the articles of trade mentioned in the long exception in the article of the treaty, were articles contraband of war by the law of nations. This article, therefore, placed our commerce with France upon a footing widely different, in case of a war between France and any third power, from the rules which would regulate that commerce with the other belligerent, with whom we might not have a similar commercial treaty. Such was its effect as compared with our relations with England, with which power we had no commercial treaty whatever, but depended upon the law of nations as our commercial rule and standard of intercourse. "Mr. W. said he now passed to the treaty of alliance between France and the United States, of the same date with the treaty of amity and commerce before referred to, and his first reference was to the 11th article of this latter treaty. It was in the following words:

reignty, and independence, absolute and unlimited, as well in matters of government as commerce, and also their possessions,' &c.; and that the respective guarantees were 'for ever.' It would by-and-by appear in what manner this guaranty on the part of our government was claimed to be the foundation for this pecuniary responsibility for millions, but at present he must complete his references to the treaties which formed the law between the two nations and the rule of their relations to and with each other. He had but one more article to read, and that was important only as it went to define the one last cited. This was the 12th article of the treaty of alliance, and was as follows:

"Art. 12. In order to fix more precisely the sense and application of the preceding article, the contracting parties declare that, in case of a rupture between France and England, the reciprocal guaranty declared in the said article shall have its full force and effect the moment such war shall break out; and if such rupture shall not take place, the mutual obligations of the said guaranty shall not commence until the moment of the cessation of the present war between the United States and England shall have ascertained their possessions.'

"These, said Mr. W., are the treaty stipulations between France and the United States, existing at the time of the commencement of the disturbances between the two countries, which gave rise to the claims now the subject of consideration, and which seem to bear most mateArt. 11. The two parties guarantee mutual- rially upon the points in issue. There were other y from the present time, and for ever, against provisions in the treaties between the two govall other powers, to wit: The United States to ernments more or less applicable to the present His Most Christian Majesty the present posses- discussion, but, in the course he had marked out sions of the Crown of France in America, as well for himself, a reference to them was not indisas those which it may acquire by the future trea-pensable, and he was not disposed to occupy the ty of peace: And His Most Christian Majesty guarantees on his part to the United States, their liberty, sovereignty, and independence, absolute and unlimited, as well in matters of government as commerce, and also their possessions, and the additions or conquests that their confederation may obtain during the war, from any of the dominions now or heretofore possessed by Great Britain in North America, conformable to the fifth and sixth articles above written, the whole as their possessions shall be fixed and assured to the said States at the moment of the cessation of their present war with England.'

time or weary the patience of the Senate with more of these dry documentary quotations than he found absolutely essential to a full and clear understanding of the points he proposed to examine.

"Mr. W. said he was now ready to present the origin of the claims which formed the subject of the bill. The war between France and England broke out, according to his recollection, late in the year 1792, or early in the year 1793, and the United States resolved upon preserving the same neutral position between those belligerents, which they had assumed at the commencement of the war between France and certain other European powers. This neutrality on the part of the United States seemed to be acceptable to the then French Republic, and her minister in the United States and her diplomatic agents at home were free and distinct in their expressions to this effect.

"This article, Mr. W. said, was the most important reference he had made, or could make, so far as the claims provided for by this bill were concerned, because he understood the friends of the bill to derive the principal consideration to the United States, which created their liability to pay the claims, from the guaranty on the part of the United States contained in it. Still that Republic made broad claims under The Senate would see that the article was a the 17th article of the treaty of amity and commutual and reciprocal guaranty, 1st. On the part merce before quoted, and her minister here asof the United States to France, of her posses- sumed the right to purchase ships, arm them as sions in America; and 2d. On the part of France privateers in our ports, commission officers for to the United States, of their liberty, sove-them, enlist our own citizens to man them,