Making the sum of near $3,500,000 transferred to London, to lie idle in the hands of an agent, while that very money was squeezed out of a few cities here; and the whole country, and the halls of Congress, were filled with the deafening din of the cry, that the bank was forced to curtail, to supply the loss in her own coffers from the removal of the deposites! And worse yet! The bank had in the hands of the same agents a large sum when the transfers of these panic collections began, making, in the whole, the sum of $4,261,201 on the first day of July last, which was lying idle in her agents' hands in London, drawing little or no interest there, while squeezed out of the hands of those who were pay. ing bank interest here, near seven per cent., and had afterwards to go into brokers' hands to borrow at one or two per cent. a month. Even now, at the last returns on the first day of this month, about $2,500,000 of this money ($2,687,006) was still lying idle in the hands of the Barings!--waiting till foreign exchange can be put up again to eight or ten per cent. The enormity of this conduct, Mr. B. said, was aggravated by the notorious fact, that the transfers of this money were made by sinking the price of exchange as low as five per cent. below par, when shippers and planters had bills to sell, and raising it eight per cent. above par when merchants and importers had to buy; thus double taxing the commerce of the country--double taxing the producer and consumer, and making a fluctuation of thirteen per cent. in foreign exchange, in the brief space of six months; and all this to make money scarce at home, while charging that scarcity upon the President! Thus combining calumny and stock-jobbing with the diabolical attempt to ruin the country or to rule it. The next fact (Mr. B. said) was the abduction of an immense amount of specie from New Orleans, at the moment the western produce was arriving there, and thus disabling the merchants from buying that produce, and thereby sinking its price nearly one-half; and all under the false pretext of supplying the loss in its coffers occasioned by the removal of the deposites. The falsehood and wickedness of this conduct will appear from the fact that, at the time of the removal of the deposites, in October, the public deposites in the New Orleans branch were far less than the amount afterwards curtailed and sent off; and that these deposites were not entirely drawn out for many months after the curtailment and abduction of the money. Thus the public deposites, in October, were: In the name of the Treasurer of the United In the name of public officers, In all, less than half a million of dollars. in March there was still on band: In the name of the Treasurer, In the name of public officers, $294,228 62 173,764 64 $467,993 26 $40,266 28 63,671 80 $103,938 08 In all, upwards of $100,000; and making the actual withdrawal of deposites, at that branch, but $360,000, and that paid out gradually, in the discharge of Government demands. Now, what was the actual curtailment during the same period? It is shown from the monthly statements, that these curtailments, on local loans, were $788,904; being upwards of double the amount of deposites, miscalled removed; for they were not removed, but only paid out in the regular progress of Government disbursement, and actually remaining in the mass of circulation, and [SENATE. much of it in the bank itself. But the specie removed during the same time! that was the fact-the damning fact, upon which he relied. This abduction was: In the month of November, $334,647, at the least. In the month of March, 808,084, at the least. $1,142,731 Mr. B. re Making near $1,250,000, at the least. peated at the least; for a monthly statement does not show the accumulation of the month, which might also be sent off; and the statement could only be relied on for so much as appeared a month before the abduction was made. Probably the sum was upwards of 1,250,000 hard dollars, thus taken away from New Orleans last winter, by stopping accommodations, calling in loans, breaking up domestic exchange, creating panic and pressure, and sinking the price of all produce; that the mother bank might transfer funds to London, gamble in foreign exchange, spread desolation and terror through the land, and then charge the whole upon the President of the United States, and end with the grand consummation of bringing a new political party into power, and perpetuating its own charter. These, said Mr. B., are two, and only two, out of multitudes of the astounding iniquities which have escaped the eyes of the committee, while they have been so successful in their antiquarian researches into Andrew Jackson's and Felix Grundy's letters ten or twenty years ago, and into Martin Van Buren's and Thomas H. Benton's six or eight years ago-letters which every public man is called upon to give to his neighbors or constituents; which no public man ought to refuse, or, in all probability, ever did refuse; and which are so ostentatiously paraded in the report, and so emphatically read in this chamber, with pause and gesture, and with such a sympathetic look for the expected smile from the friends of the bank; letters which, so far as he was concerned, had been used to make the committee the organ of a falsehood. And now Mr. B. would be glad to know who put the committee upon the scent of those old musty letters, for there was nothing in the resolution under which they acted to conduct their footsteps to the silent covert of that small game. But Mr. B. was done for the present. He was done for the present, but not for the future. Justice cannot he done upon this report of the committee until it is printed. The only object which he now had in view was to vindicate some gentlemen, including himself, who were most unjustly treated, and to show the true character of the entire report, by exhibiting the minute diligence and miraculous success of the committee in hunting out things of nothing, to be turned to the account of the bank, and to the prejudice of its adversaries, while stone blind to such recent and such enormous misconduct of the bank as he had just detailed to the Senate, and which came within the precise letter of the resolutions under which they acted. Mr. TYLER said that nothing would please him more than to have the report of the committee which had been so furiously assailed by the Senator from Missouri referred to another committee for their most rigid examination, and he would like the honorable Senator [Mr. BENTON] to be one of the committee. Let the honorable Senator summon his witnesses and take depositions without number-let him then return with his budget to this House, and lay them, with or without an air of triumph, on the table. But he would find himself mistaken. All his witnesses combined would not be able to overthrow the testimony upon which the report of the committee is based. There is not a single declaration in the report which is not founded upon testimony which cannot liewritten, documentary evidence, which no party testi mony can overcome. In times like these, the gentleman might be able to procure witnesses without number; but here (said Mr. TYLER, laying his hands on the documents and papers referred to in the report) is proof too strong for the most furious partisan to assail with success. Upon it, he, for one, would rest. The honorable Senator had denominated the report "an elaborate defence of the bank." He had said that it justified the bank in its course of curtailment during the last winter and the early part of the summer. Sir, if the honorable Senator had paid more attention to the reading, or had waited to have it in print, he would not have hazarded such a declaration. He would have perceived that that whole question was submitted to the decision of the Senate. The committee had presented both sides of the question-the view most favorable, and that most unfavorable, to the institution. It exhibited the measures of the Executive and those of the bank consequent upon them on the one side, and the available reSources of the bank on the other. The fact that its circulation of $19,000,000 was protected by specie to the amount of $10,000,000, and claims on the State banks exceeding $2,000,000, which were equal to specie-that its purchase of domestic exchange had so declined from May to October as to place at its disposal more than $5,000,000; something more than a doubt is expressed whether, under ordinary circumstances, the bank would have been justified in curtailing its discounts. So, too, in regard to a perseverance in its measures of precaution as long as it did, a summary of facts is given to enable the Senate to decide upon the propriety of the course pursued by the bank. The effort of the committee has been to present these subjects fairly to the Senate and the country. They have sought "nothing to extenuate," nor have they "set down aught in malice." The statements are presented to the Senator, for his calm and deliberate consideration-to each Senator, to be weighed as becomes his high station. And what is the course of the honorable Senator? The moment he (Mr. T.) could return to his seat from the Clerk's table, the gentleman pounces upon the report, and makes assertions which a careful perusal of it would cause him to know it does not contain. On one subject, the controversy relative to the bill of exchange, and the damages consequent on its protest, the committee had expressed the opinion that the Government was in error, and he, as a member of that committee, would declare his own conviction that that opinion was sound and maintainable before any fair and impartial tribunal in the world. Cartain persons started back with alarm at the mere mention of a court of justice. The trial by jury had become hateful in their eyes. The great principles of magna charta are to be overlooked, and the declarations contained in the bill of rights are become too old fashioned to be valuable. Popular prejudices are to be addressed, and, instead of an appeal to the calm judgment of mankind, every lurking prejudice is to be awakened, because a corporation, or a set of individuals, have believed themselves wronged by the accounting officers of the Treasury, and have had the temerity and impudence to take a course calculated to bring their rights before the forum of the courts. Let those who see cause to pursue this course rejoice as they may please, and exult in the success which attends it. For one, I renounce it as unworthy American statesmen. The committee had addressed a sober and temperate but firm argument upon this subject to the Senate; and standing in the presence of that august body, and before the whole American people, he rested upon that argument for the truth of the opinion advanced. An opinion, for the honesty of which, on his own part, he would avouch, after the most solemn manner, under the unutterable obligations he was under to his Creator. The Senator had also spoken in strong language as to [DEC. 18, 1834. that part of the report which related to the committee of exchange. He had said that a false issue had been presented—that the 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 very language is quoted in the report. He places the violation of the charter distinctly on the ground that the business of the bank is intrusted 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. He had not called for General Cadwallader's report upon the subject of the branch at St. Louis, because he did not see the necessity for it. The bank was charged, in the report of the committee of the other House, in 1832, with having established branches without other motive than the spread of its influence. This is the charge which was inquired into, and the gentleman's letter, forwarding the application of the citizens of St. Louis, and that of Mr. Rush, the Secretary of the Treasury, contained high evidence of the propriety of the establishment of a branch at that place, and relieved the bank from any improper ascription as to that branch. The report stated the fact that the Senator wrote that letter. Was it true or false? [Mr. BENTON. True! true!] As well, said Mr. T., might the Senator from Tennessee [Mr. GRUNDY] complain that his first application, in 1817, for a branch at Nashville, was rejected, as well as all subsequent pplications until 1827. The honorable Senator, after all, has no great cause to complain of the bank in regard to the branch at St. Louis. True, when he smiled, the bank refused: he gave it a blow, and straightway it was kind. Whether his smiles or frowns obtained the branch did not seem to him, (Mr. TYLER,) to alter the matter. The gentleman had said that he was in good company. True, he stands in good company. Perhaps he could not have selected a company to suit him better. To be with you, sir, (addressing himself to the VICE PRESIDENT,) would be high honor; but to have you and the President of the United States along with him is certainly no ordinary good fortune. He had one word more to say on this subject. It was due to the committee to say, that the facts adduced upon this point of inquiry were elicited in the prosecution of their legitimate inquiries relative to the management of the bank. DEC. 22, 1834.] Gales & Seaton's Register of Debates. They sought cause of offence to no one; but they could not withhold information necessary to an elucidation of the question. The gentleman had complained of a publication by the bank of a review of his speech. Mr. T. said that he too complained of the extent of the publications of the bank. He knew that the gentleman had been frequently reviewed he had probably still to pass through other editions-but if the Senator had delayed his attack on the report for a few hours, until he could have read the documents, he would have seen a full account of "the review," and also of "General Jackson vetoed," (alluding to a publication paid for by the bank.) Now, sir, I object to all this; and this elaborate report in defence of the bank condemns these publications, and others of a simi lar character, as highly impolitic. He charges the committee with having endorsed falsehoods. [Here Mr. BENTON disclaimed any personal allusions.] I do not believe there ever has been any thing in our past lives that could lead to any personal difference between us. But, said Mr. T., as one of the committee, I must defend the report against this charge. There is not an assertion in it which is not sustained by proof. If the honorable Senator will look to the report, he will find no charge against the President of vindictiveness, or an attempt to use the bank for political purposes. The first is a quotation from Mr. Duane, late Secretary of the Treasury. [Mr. BENTON. By quoting it you made it your own.] Mr. TYLER. Indeed, sir; then the committee has much to answer for. They have quoted numerous passages from Mr. Taney and others, and woful is their plight if they have to answer for all they contain. The committee has quoted the honorable Senator's own letter, in regard to the branch at St. Louis. Now, sir, we claim no divided authorship of that letter, or of the President's or Vice President's for Pensacola or Albany. One word more before I take my seat. The committee, in their investigations, have sought for nothing but the truth. I am opposed to the bank. In its creation I regard the constitution as having been violated; I desire to see it expire. But the Senate have appointed me, with others, to inquire whether it be guilty of certain charges; and I should regard myself as the basest of mankind, if I could consent to charge it falsely. The report is founded on unquestionable documentary evidence. The gentleman may have as much opportunity as he pleases to review it, and he has already commenced the task, and I shall be ready to answer all the objections that can be raised against it by him or any others, and to prove, from the documents themselves, that the report is made with the utmost fairness, and with the most scrupulous regard to truth. The printing was then ordered; and The Senate adjourned over to Monday next. MONDAY, DECEMBER 22. GALES & SEATON'S REGISTER OF DEBATES. Mr. BENTON rose and asked the indulgence of the Senate for a moment, that he might try an issue with Messrs. Gales and Seaton, editors of the Congressional Register, by an inspection of the record. He had stated on Thursday last that they had, in their Register, suppressed two of his main speeches on the Bank of the United States, in 1832, and inserted a falsified account of another. This statement seemed to be denied in the National Intelligencer of this morning;* and he had now The following is the notice, in the National Intelligencer of December 22, to which Mr. BENTON here referred: [SENATE. brought in the Register, vol. 8, part the first, for the session 1831-32, to verify what he had said. Mr. B. then turned to the Register, for the debates of June 8th and 9th, when, as the Senate would recollect, he spoke at large on the question to engross the bill: he spoke the afternoon of one day and the forenoon of the next. Of all this, about half a column is in the Register; and even that attributed to him things which he had not said, and which he disclaimed. The second suppression was on the return of the bill with the veto message, when he again spoke the afternoon of one day, and some hours of the next. Of all this, scarce a paragraph was to be found in the Register. It was a speech, however, which was well known to the country at the time, and which the Bank of orable Mr. BENTON to make an attack, in the Senate, upon the Register of Debates,' which we find reported more at large (under the presumed revision of that gentleman) in the Globe, than it was by the reporter for the National Intelligencer. The publishers of that work, not disposed to shrink from any scrutiny into the character of that work, copy from the report of the speech in the Globe so much as relates to that matter: [Here follows the passage of Mr. BENTON's speech, beginning "That looked bad enough," &c.] "Mr. BENTON's complaint is not new to the publishers. It had been communicated to them by himself about a year ago, when the eighth volume of the Register of Debates (for 1831-32) was first published. To that complaint the editors replied. The most compendious answer to the charge now repeated in the Senate may perhaps be made by publishing their reply to the letter of the honorable Senator, (in which, by the way, we find no allusion of any sort to the bank,) as follows: "THURSDAY, 12 O'CLOCK. "SIR: Your note of yesterday has just been placed in our hands. "It is not to avert the purpose of which you apprize us, but in justice to ourselves, that we make the following statement in reply: 66 First, the 7th and 8th volumes of the Register of Debates were wholly compiled and prepared for the press by ourselves personally, and we can, with the most perfect sincerity, aver, that, in making up the debates, and having in view solely the character of the work as a permanent and faithful record, we sought to do justice to every member of Congress, without favor or prejudice, personal or political: "Secondly, That, in accordance with this purpose, we resorted to every source where it was probable authentic materials could be found for the work: That, not confining ourselves to the columns of the Intelligencer, we kept constantly before us files of the Globe and Telegraph, diligently compared the various reports of every debate, invariably selecting that which appeared to us the fullest or most accurate, and in all cases preferring that which bore evidence of the speaker's revision: "Thirdly, That, in regard to your speeches on the vaous bank questions, not only did we insert every set speech which we could find reported in any of the papers, but also all reports of your remarks on incidental questions, of which we found many in the Globe not reported elsewhere. So faithfully, indeed, was this compilation performed, especially towards yourself, and so fully, and, as we believed, impartially had we given every thing we could find in the shape of authentic remarks by you, that had we tasked our thoughts for an individual who, less than any other member in Congress could complain of injustice, it would have been yourself. "As to the particular report to which you refer as injurious to you, all we have to say is, that neither of us was "THE REGISTER OF DEBATES.-It has pleased the hon- in the Senate when the debate, or altercation, took VOL. XI.-3 SENATE.] Presents from Foreign Powers-French Spoliations. the United States had reviewed, and seventy-five thousand copies printed and circulated. Mr. B. said the editors of the Intelligencer had undertaken to show there could be no suppression, because they had inserted a great many long columns of his speeches in their Register. He said it would not require a yard-stick to measure what they had inserted for him on these two occasions, when he spoke part of two days at each time; a barley-corn would do for the measure. They were about the length of a barley-corn, as they appeared in the Register. The third point that he complained of was that of inserting under his name a falsified account of an unpleasant altercation which grew out of the debate on the veto message. | He had qualified that account of that altercation by the epithets which it deserved, on Thursday last, when he branded it as an infamous falsification of the truth. It was Mr. B's intention, at some suitable time, to have a committee to examine into these Registers, and that with much larger views than would relate to the personal injury done to himself. For the present he had no object but to try an issue, by inspecting the record: he had done this, and shown the volume and page, day and year, subject and occasion, on which his speeches were suppressed and falsified. PRESENTS FROM FOREIGN POWERS. The joint resolution from the House, authorizing the sale of the lion and horses presented to the United States consul at Tangiers, by the Emperor of Morocco, was read twice; when Mr. CLAY said, as there was no very appropriate committee to which the resolution could be sent, he would move to refer the resolution to the Committee on Agriculture. place, and that we inserted that report which we were The "We will only add that we consider the Register of Debates as a work of history, involving the character of our legislative councils and of our public men. work will transmit both to posterity, and will be referred to as authority. We are aware of the responsibility we assume in editing it; and we hold that we should be faithless to our trust, faithless to our country, and to ourselves, if we permitted any personal favor or prejudice, or any perishable motive whatsoever, to betray the confidence which Congress and the public have reposed in our fidelity. We remain, respectfully, Your obedient servants, GALES & SEATON." "As a mere matter of curiosity, we have turned over the pages of the volume of Debates in which Mr. B. charges suppression of his speeches. The whole number of pages devoted to the Senate debates in that volume is 654, each page containing two columns; in the whole, 1308 columns. Divided among the forty-eight members who compose that body, the proportion to be occupied by each, if the proportion appropriated to each were equal, would be between 27 and 28 columns. We find, on hasty measurement, that the remarks of Mr. BENTON, interspersed through the volume, occupy more than 100 columns, of which more than 50 relate to the Bank of the United States, the subject in regard to which the harge of suppression is applied." [DEC. 22, 1834. Mr. KING, of Alabama, observed that, as the presents appeared to be connected with our foreign relations, he thought the Committee on Foreign Relations the most appropriate one for the resolution to be sent to. Mr. CLAY objected to that reference, as the animals, he was informed, were now in this city, and the subject was not connected with our foreign affairs. Mr. KING replied that, if the Committee on Agriculture desired to take charge of the subject, (not being himself on the committee,) he had no objection. But, as it appeared that our consuls and other public functionaries could receive no presents from foreign Powers, and, in previous instances, when induced to do so rather than give offence to those who presented them, they had been sent to the Government, he thought the committee he had indicated the most suitable one. But if the Agricultural Committee were desirous of using the horses, he (Mr. K.) had no objection. The resolution was referred to the Committee on Agriculture. FRENCH SPOLIATIONS. The bill providing indemnity to American citizens who suffered by spoliations on their commerce, committed by the French prior to 1800, was taken up as the unfinished business; when Mr. SHEPLEY rose and spoke as follows: Mr. President: When I consider the importance of the bill now under consideration, I cannot forbear asking again the indulgence of the Senate, while I turn to them, attempt to show the justice of the measure conthe published documents of this Government, and, from templated by this bill. I am aware that it will be but a very limited and imperfect exhibition of the merits of the bill to occupy the time of the Senate by a dry reci tal of State papers; and yet, that is nearly all that I propose to do. I shall attempt to show from such docu. taken from them by France; that their right to have ments that the property of our citizens was illegally compensation from France was recognised by the United States; that it was also admitted by France; that of which, to some extent, was not denied; that compenFrance had claims against the United States, the justice sation for these injuries might have been obtained from France, if we had been willing to institute a commission for mutual compensation for injuries. France offered this. That compensation was not obtained, because the United States chose to discharge these claims for the purpose of obtaining a discharge of her obligations to The right to compensation was not destroyed France. by a state of war. For the purpose of showing the character of the injuries inflicted upon our commerce, it will be necessary to examine the commercial relations between this coun try and France at that time. By the treaty of amity and commerce of the 6th of February, 1778, article 23d, it is provided that it shall be lawful for the subjects of France, and the people of the 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." And this, "not only directly from the places of the enemy aforementioned 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,' although the whole lading, or any part thereof, should appertain to the enemies of either, contraband goods being always excepted. DEC. 22, 1834.] French Spoliations. The 24th article enumerates the goods which are to be regarded as contraband. [SENATE. nations or to existing treaties; and that, on their forwarding hither well-authenticated evidence of the same, proper proceedings will be adopted for their relief." And in a letter to our minister to Great Britain, under date of April 26, 1797, the Secretary says "that near The 25th article prescribes that, in case either party shall be engaged in a war, its ships and vessels "must be furnished with sea-letters or passports, expressing the name, property, and bulk of the ship," accordingly all the vessels, or cargoes, or both, which are carried to the form annexed to the treaty. This was to be the evidence of the property of the ship as respects its national character. It was during the existence of this treaty, admitted by both parties to be then obligatory upon the parties to it, that the first clause of the complaint arose. By a decree of the National Convention of France, of the date of 9th May, 1793, it is declared: "Art. 1. The French ships of war and privateers may arrest and bring into the ports of the Republic the neutral vessels which shall be laden, wholly or in part, either with articles of provisions belonging to neutral nations and destined to an enemy's port, or with merchandises belonging to an enemy." The same Convention, on the 23d of the same month, declared, by decree, "that the vessels of the United States are not comprehended in the dispositions of the decree of the 9th of May." This decree of the 23d was repealed on the 28th of May. The Convention, on the 1st of July, again decreed that the vessels of the United States were not comprehended in the decree of the 9th of May. And the decree of the 27th July again "maintained the dispositions of that of the 9th of May." The Executive Directory, on the 2d of July, 1796, declared "that neutral and allied Powers shall, without delay, be notified that the flag of the French Republic will treat neutral vessels, either as to confiscation, as to searches or capture, in the same manner as they shall suffer the English to treat them." And on the 2d March, 1797, the Directory decreed "that the French vessels of war and privateers may stop and carry into the ports of the Republic neutral vessels which may be found loaded entirely or in part with merchandise belonging to the enemy." The French Minister of the Marine and of the Colonies, on the 30th April, 1797, declares: "Every American ship must have a passport and a role d'equipage (ship's roll)-I mean a liste d'equipage (crew list.) Whereas, without these papers, she ought to be confiscated." And he gives reasons for it; and yet the passport only was required by the treaty, as was afterwards admitted by France. The Council of Five Hundred, on the 11th January, 1798, decreed that "the character of the vessel, relative to the quality of neuter or enemy, is determined by her cargo." An extraordinary tribunal was made the organ to decide upon prizes, by a decree of 8th of November, 1793, declaring "the validity or invalidity of prizes made by privateers shall be decided by way of administration by the Provisory Executive Council." All these decrees, and the proceedings under them, were not only in direct violation of the treaty and the articles recited, but so far these depredations on our commerce took place before the passage of the act of Congress of the 7th of July, 1798, annulling the treaties. The right of the citizens to have compensation from France was, as I have said, recognised by the United States. The Secretary of State, Mr. Jefferson, in a circular letter addressed to the merchants, under date of August, 1793, says: "I have it in charge from the President, to assure the merchants of the United States, concerned in foreign commerce or navigation, that due attention will be paid to any injuries they may suffer on the high seas or in foreign countries, contrary to the law of in by their privateers, are condemned by the civil officers on shore. Besides, when he (Mr. Adet) mentions unauthorized captures, he connot refer to the multitude which we complain of as made in direct violation of our treaty with France." In the instructions to our envoys to France, under date of July 15, 1797, is this declaration: "Indeed, the greater part, probably nearly all the captures and confiscations in question, have been committed in direct violation of that treaty, or of the law of nations." The President of the United States in his speech of the 8th of December, 1798, speaking of a decree of the Directory, says "it enjoins them to conform to all the laws of France relative to cruising and prizes; while these laws are themselves the sources of the depredations of which we have so long, so justly, and so fruitlessly complained." So perfect was the right of the citizens to have compensation regarded, that in the instructions, under date of 22d October, 1799, to our envoys to France, is this clause: "First. At the opening of the negotiation, you will inform the French ministers that the United States expect from France, as an indispensable condition of the reaty, a stipulation to make to the citizens of the United States full compensation for all losses and damages which they shall have sustained by reason of irregular or illegal captures, or condemnations of their vessels and their property, under color of authority or commissions from the French Republic or its agents." It remains next to accertain whether France did not admit her obligation to make compensation. In the deliberations of the Executive Directory, on the 31st July, 1798, it is stated that such information has been received as to "leave no room to doubt that French cruisers, or such as call themselves French, have infringed the laws of the Republic relative to cruising and prizes." And in a decree of the 18th March, 1799, the Executive Directory admits that the former decree, "in what relates to the roles d'equipages with which neutral vessels ought to be furnished, has had improper interpretations, so far as concerns the roles d'equipages of American vessels, and that it is time to do away the obstacles resulting therefrom to the navigation of the vessels of that nation." Our envoys claiming compensation from France, find France also claiming a fulfilment on our part of the treaties; and in their letter of 17th May, 1800, to the Secretary of State, they say: "Our success is doubtful. The French think it hard to indemnify for violating engagements, unless they can thereby be restored to the benefits of them." The objection here then is not to making an indemnity, but to making it without having the benefit of the same treaties, for the violation of which we claimed of them compensation. The French ministers, in their proposal to the American envoys, under date of the 11th August, 1800, say: "Thus, the first proposition of the ministers of France is to stipulate a full and entire recognition of treaties, and the reciprocal engagement of compensation for damages resulting on both sides from their infraction." If this is not accepted, they then propose "the abolition "there would be of ancient treaties," and in such case no demand of compensation." Here, then, is an offer of compensation for injuries to our citizens, made by France; but she claimed compensation from the United States for the non-fulfilment of the treaties, and that the compensation should be reciprocal. |