The Congressional Globe, Volume 13, Part 1: Twenty-Eighth Congress, First Session Page: 262

                                
CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE.
•mention shall be in force for the spaceof eight years,
and with the retrenchment of the second article:
Provided, that, by this retrenchment, the two States
renounce their respective pretensions, which are the ob-
ject of said article." _
The treaty, with this ratification by the French
authorities, was again laid before the Senate by the
President of the United States; and thereupon,
the Senate "resolved, that they conside-ed the con-
vention as fully ratified, and returned the same to
the President for the usual promulgation." .
Now, (said Mr. F.,)*can anything be clearer than
that here was a mutual release of claims? Indepen-
dent of the subsequent action of the two govern-
ments, does not the expunging of the second article
from the treaty which provided for further, nego-
tiation for the claims of our citizens, touching their
amount, and not their existence, and for the claims
of France upon this government, show clearly a
willingness on the part of this government, to avoid
future difficulties, by balancing accounts? Is not this
the only inference fairly deducible from the act' But,
however strong the inference, Bonaparte chose to
leave nothing unexpressed; and accordingly, in his
second ratification, he does it in effect, upon the con-
dition, that such was the meaning and intention of
the government of the United States. And to end
all doubt, and render certainty doubly certain, the
correctness of this interpretation is admitted by the final
rtsolve of the Senate.
In the face of all this, it has been said that no
valuable consideration was ever received by the
United States for the release of our claims; that they
were pursued by our government so long as pursuit
was reasonable, and finally abandoned as irrecovera-
ble and worthless. I have, therefore, deemed it
proper to refer the Senate to a correspondence be-
tween Mr. Madison, Secretary of State, and Mr.
Pinckney, minister to Spain, in which this subject
is referred to, and which cannot but be regarded
as a very important piece of evidence in the case.
It seems that the Spanish government resisted our
claim to indemnity for spoliations committed by
French subjects, under the authority of Spain, or
at least within her territories, on the ground of our
demand on France, and the expunging of the second
article of the treaty. Mr. Madison, in a communi-
cation to Mr. Pinckney, under date of February 6,
1804, says:
"The plea on which, it seems, the Spanish gov-
ernment now principally relies, is the erasure of the
second article from our late convention with France,
by which France was released from the indemnities
due for spoliations committed under her immediate
responsibility to the United States. This plea (lid
not appear in the early objections of Spain to our
claims. It was an after-thought, resulting from the
insufficiency of every other plea, and certainly is as
little valid as any other."
"The injuries for which indemnities are claimed
from Spain, though committed by Frenchmen, took
place under Spanish authority. Spain, therefore, is
answerable for them. To her we have looked, and
continue to look, for redress. If the injuries done
to us by her resulted in any manner from injuries
done to her by France, she may, if she pleases, re-
sort to France as we resort to her. But whether her
resort to France would be just or unjust, is a ques-
tion between her and Franco, not between either
her and us, or us and Francs. We claim against
her, not against France.. In releasing France, there-
fore, we have not released her. The claims, again,
from which France was released, were admitted
by France, and the release was for a valuable consid-
eration, in. a correspondent release of the United States
from certain claims on them. The claims we make
' on Spain were never admitted by France, nor made
on France by the United States. Tliey made, there-
fore, no part of the bargain with her, and could not
be included in the release."
Now, when it is recollected that this was under
the administration of Mr. Jefferson, by whom the
treaty had been ratified, can a reasonable doubt re-
main that, in the release of the claims of France upon
the United States, there was a quid pro quo—a valu-
able consideration; and that, consequently, the private
property of certain of our citizens has been appro-
priated to "public uses?"
How has this plain case, and the obligations on
the part of the United States necessaiily resulting
from it, been met by its opponents' In addition to
what has already appeared, it is insisted that be-
tween 1793 and 1800, or, at all events, between
1798 and 1800, actual war existed between this coun-
U'Y and France; that, consequently, all private grisY-
ances were merged in those of the nation; and on'the
negotiation of peace, without providing for them,
they became extinct. Now, without admitting the
correctness of the inference, (said Mr. F.) I deny the
fact. There certainly was no declaration of war by
either party. If war, therefore, actually existed, it
must have been an informal one, and resulting from'
the acts of the parties. What were those acts? On
the part of France, she seized our merchant vessels,
earned them into her ports, caused them to be con-
demned in her admiralty courts, and from the pro-
ceeds of sale replenished her treasury. But this was
not done because we were at war. The legal pro-
ceedings forbid such an idea. It was done on the
alleged ground of a violation of the laws of neutral-
ity, (France and England being then at war,) and in
violation of the edicts and decrees of the French
Government; which, however unjust towards us,
and in violation of treaty stipulations, were, never-
theless, in form at least, peaceable, and not warlike
proceedings.
On our part, our ships of war were authorized to
take armed French vessels found hovering on our
coasts for the purpose of annoying our commerce.
Merchant vessels were also authorized to arm them-
selves, and to resist any attempt of French cruisers
to capture them. An army was ordered to be raised;
all intercourse with France, for one year, was inter-
dicted by law; and the treaties between us and France
were declared to be void. These are the principal
acts relied upon to show that the two countries were
at war. On the contrary, (said Mr. F.,) I think, un-
der the circumstances, they are explainable in perfect
consistency with the true state of affairs—to wit:
that our government was apprchemhe of a war, and
were wisely making preparation for that event,
should it come. Our ships of war were not t6 seize
upon property belonging to French citizens, as they
would have been in case of war. They were not
even to attack or seize French vessels of war indis-
criminately; but only those which should be found
hovering on our coasts for the purpose of annoying
our commerce. Our merchant vessels were only to
arm in self-defence. The act authorizing the Presi-
dent to augment the army, limited the power to the
case of a war breaking out between the United States
and some foreign prince or power. The attempt to
annul the subsisting treaties was not upon the
ground of a war existing—for that would have of
itself put an end to the treaties; but upon the ground
that France had neglected to fulfil their stipulations
on her part—that she was guilty of the first breach.
In all this, therefore, there is no evidence of an actual
war. They are indications merely of an apprehen-
sion or fear of war
But again; if war actually existed between the
two countries, is it not unaccountable that no sug-
gestion to that effect should have been made by the
ministers on either side in negotiating the treaty of
1800? This, if true, would have furnished a con-
clusive answer to any claims that might have been
set up This course, if the facts would have war-
ranted it, would have been the easiest and shortest
way of getting rid of the difficulties growing out of
the infractions of treaties.
But, as a further proof that no war existed, I
would refer the Senate (said Mr. F.) to the instruc-
tions given our ministers sent to Pans to negotiate
the treaty of 1800. After enumerating the multipli-
ed aggressions of France upon our commerce, and
her refusal to make indemnity, the instructions go on
to say: "This conduct of the French republic would
well have justified an immediate declaration of war
on the part of the United States; but, desirous of
maintaining peace, and still willing to leave open the
door of reconciliation with France, the United States
contented themselves with preparations for defence, and
measures ealculutedto protect their commerce.'"
Again: the American ministers, in a letter to the
government at home, under date of August20,1800,
in alluding to the act of Congress annulling the
treaties, say: "if it had amounted to a cause of icar,
yet, as the wisdom of France reconciled it to peace,
its application on the principles of war, to the extin-
guishment of claims, would be inexplicable.'"' Un-
justifiable and preposterous, also, might well have
"been added.
Without quoting further from public documents,
which Imighteasily do, (said Mr. F.,) in reference to
this point, I submit whether this idea of war is not a
mere figment of the brain—an ingenious suggestion
made to evade the force of an array of facts other-
wise irresistible and conclusive.
Permit mc, Mr. President, (said Mr. F.) to no-
tice one otiier objection to the allowance of these
It is urged against
of them are owned
and the remainder
claims, and I have done.
their allowance that most
by insurance companies,
have been bought up by speculators for a mere
song. Now, sir, I appeal to every fair and can-
did mind, whether the nature of the claim, its
justice and fairness, can be affected by the circum-
stance that the petitioners claim m an individual or
associated capacity. If the owner of the confiscated
vessel has received her value from the insurer,
should not that insurer, by every principle of jus-
tice and right, be permitted to stand in the place
of the owner in case indemnity should be provided?
But the fact is not if accordance with the allegation.
On recurring to the documents it will be found that,
among 956 petitions, only 18 are from insurance
companies. And, in regard to the allegation that the
claims have been purchased up by speculators, I
wish to say (said Mr. F.) that, so far as my knowl-
edge extends upon this subject, in reference to my
own State, I most solemnly aver that no such case
exists. Not a solitary purchase of one of these
claims has ever come to my knowledge; and I have
no reason to believe that a different state of things
exists in regard to these claims in other States. If,
however, it were so, the objection may be easily
obviated by making corresponding discrimination
in your bill. Let the purchaser receive only what
he has paid. Upon the whole, is it not clear:
1. That these petitioners, or those whom they
represent, had valid claims against France for com-
mercial spoliations between the years 1793 and
1800?
2. That these claims were released to France by
the United States, in the treaty of 30th September,
1800?
3. That the release of claims on the part of i ranee
against the government of the United States, under
treaty stipulations, and release from obligations on
the part of the United States to aid France in main-
taining her possession to her West India islands,
constituted the consideration of the release aforesaid
on the part of the United States?
4. That the grounds assumed in opposition to
these claims are unsubstantial, and cannot be main-
tained? .
If these points have been satisfactorily established,
it follows that further delay will be unjust and cruel.
I trust, therefore, that the committee having charge
of this subject will, after due investigation, report
upon these claims at so early a day as to ensure the
final action of both branches of Congress at the pres-
ent session; and thus, if not satisfy the ends of jus-
tice, at least no longer tantalize these claimants with
that
"hope deferred,
■Which maketh the heart sick."
Mr. FOSTER presented a memorial from the
heirs of John S. Russwurm, praying the allowance
of legal interest on commutation money heretofore
allowed him as an officer in the revolutionary war:
referred to the Committee on Revolutionary Claims.
Mr. BAYARD presented a petition from James
R. Howison, asking compensation for scientific du-
ties in the exploring expedition: referred to.the Com-
mittee on Naval Affairs.
Mr. FOSTER presented resolutions adopted by
the legislature of Tennessee, asking Congress to
pass a law authorizing the publication of the decis-
ions of the Supreme court of the United States in a
compact and cheap form; also, a recommendation of
the members of the bar of Tennessee upon the sub-
ject; which were referred to the Judiciary Commit-
tee.
Mr. MILLER presented additional evidence in
support of the case of Charles R. Williamson, pray-
ing compensation for injuries and disease contract-
ed by him while in the naval service of the Jfeited
States: referred to the Committee on Naval .OTairs.
Mr. SEVIER presented a memorial from F. R.
Dorsett, David Kurtz, John Robinson, and Wm.
M. Douglass, watchmen in the War and Navy De-
partments, asking for additional pay as such: refer-
red to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. SEVIER submitted the following resolution,
which he said had been handed to him by a repre-
sentative from the Indians; which was adopted, viz:
Resolved, That the Committee on Indian Affairs
"be instructed to inquire into and ascertain what
amount of money was provided to be paid to the
Cherokee Indians under the treaty and the supple-
mental articles of the treaty of December 29,1835; for
what objects; what amount has been appropriated