for the privilege of her privateers secured by the 17th article. The better to understand the value of this offer, said Mr. K., let us look to the instructions which preceded it, and with an evident reference to which it was made. These instructions say: "On the part of the United States, instead of troops or ships of war, it would be convenient to stipulate for a moderate sum of money, or quantity of provisions, at the option of France. The provisions to be delivered at our ports in any future defensive war," &c. It was the opinion of our cabinet at that time, that the guarantee in the 11th article only extended to a defensive war, and no treaty renewing it on any other than this construction would have been ratified by the United States. This offer, then, was to renew the mutual guarantee, but at the same time to settle its construction and its value. For the privileges under the 17th article we should have paid three millions, for those privileges were needed by us in our commercial relations with England. But the five millions were contingent upon a future defensive war. This part of the arrangement was as valuable to one party as the other, and in fact the contingency had not yet happened, which would have jusified the claim. So then we see this valuable offer, said Mr. K., was an offer of three millions of francs certain, and five millions contingent, that we might receive fifty millions certain, by way of indemnities. Well might we propose to renew the treaties on such terms. It was not very surprising that France did not accept the generous offer. Mr. K. said it only remained to inquire whether there was any just cause of complaint against the Government because the attitude it assumed towards France may have released these claims. To admit this would allow individuals to control the policy of nations. If these claims were so released, it was only one of those individual sacrifices constantly made to State policy, in the necessary operations of Government. We had done every thing that could be reasonably required to secure their claims. We had spent large sums in missions and negotiations before we resorted to hostile measures, which were, of course, attended with heavy expense, Perhaps, said Mr. K., if we were to enter into a strict account with these claimants, we have spent more money in pursuit of their claims than the amount at which they are estimated, without computing the blood of our citizens, which may be estimated beyond millions of treasure. It is for this, among other reasons, said Mr. K, that war always relinquishes the claims for which it is declared. The blood of a single citizen satisfies millions of debt. The attitude which the United States assumed then was necessary to the permanent policy and honor of the country; and all private interests must yield to it. In fact, said Mr. K., it has been clearly shown by the Senator from New Hampshire, [Mr. HILL,] that their claims, under no circumstances, would ever have been worth one cent. It would be recollected that we did get the promise, in the treaty of 1800, of indemnity for all prizes not definitively condemned. Did Bonaparte pay these claims for which we held his bond in the treaty? Not at all, sir. Not a dollar of them would he pay to us; and we never should have got a dollar from him, even for these acknowledged indemnities, had not Louisiana been forced, as it were, to auction, to prevent it from falling into the hands of the English. And not even then, sir, if we had not been cheated out of the amount by French diplomacy, by which it was gratuitously paid by ourselves, and ten millions besides. Bonaparte told his minister to take fifty millions of francs. He obtained eighty, with the stipulation that twenty millions were to be deducted to satisfy indemnities under the treaty of 1800. Bonaparte was delighted at the bargain; but mark what he said to Marbois, his agent, when the [SENATE. Who treaty was reported to him. "I would that these twenty millions be paid into the treasury. authorized you to part with the money of the State?" He was reminded that he still would get ten millions more than he asked, besides satisfying the Americans. "Ab, 'tis true," said he, "the treaty does not leave one any thing to desire. Sixty millions for an occupation that would not, perhaps, last a day," &c. Is it likely, then, inquired Mr. K., that when he had uniformly refused to satisfy what he had solemnly promised to pay "for captures not definitively condemned," that he would have paid for captures every one of which had been condemned, and for which any treaty stipulation had been refused? Sir, said Mr. K., the claims were not worth a mill in the dollar, at any time. Bonaparte pay such claims! No, sir. He, with his drum-headed justice and gunpowder administration, robbed every body and paid no body. If these views be just, said Mr. K., however the claims may have been released, the claimants lost nothing, for France never would have paid any thing for these claims, every one of which had received the condemnation of her tribunals in some form or other, whether rightly or not. In the last treaty we had to exclude all cases condemned, however just our complaints of the proceedings under which the condemnations were made. Mr. K. concluded, then, that France owed no part of these claims on the 30th September, 1800, which she ever would have paid, or that, in strictness, could be insisted on. That the United States, on the same date, were under no treaty stipulation to France, a release from which would afford a consideration for the claims. Claims and treaties, he said, had been extinguished, and no act had ever been done by the treaty-making power in this country to revive them. These views he thought an entire answer to the claims. As to the nature of these claims, said Mr. K., which had been already referred to, he must say they were not such as appealed strongly to our sympathies. There were few, it was said, in the hands of the original losers, and they were mostly in the hands of ensurance companies and underwriters. These, said Mr. K., are the weakest of all possible claims. It was known that, in those days, profits were enormous, and increased by the risk, which was known to be great; and the risk and profit regulated the premiums, which were also excessively high. If, then, the loss should be returned, the ensurer was enriched by high premiums, whilst he had the loss returned to him. This he thought a tolerably fair business for ensurers. We are told, to be sure, of "widows and orphans," who await the tardy justice of Government. He thought it likely there might be some, and some very rich ones, too. The widows and orphans of the original losers, however, be expected, were few in number, and only thrust forward in the foreground of the picture, whilst rich ensurers, underwriters, and speculators, in great numbers, lay back, concealed in its more remote and deepening shades. Mr. K. said he had been unable to bring his mind to the support of this bill. It was but right, however, that he should confess, in conclusion, (although he could not say he was prejudiced,) he had a powerful weight of presumptive evidence to get rid of before he could look into details to get at the original merits of the claim. He said it might be safely assumed that no Government in the world was more just to the claims of its citizens than that of the United States; and if, at any time, a claim was not allowed when pressed upon it, the refusal was a strong circumstance against it. This claim had been before Congress for thirty-four years, and had not yet got through both Houses of Congress. And during a portion of that period it was known that we were not SENATE.] Loami Baldwin-French Spoliations. FRENCH SPOLIATIONS. [JAN. 9, 1835. The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill making compensation for French spoliations prior to 1800. Mr. BENTON, being entitled to the floor, rose and addressed the Chair as follows: looking out for ways and means to defray the expenses of Government, but actually looking out for ways and means to absorb an apprehended surplus. I would say, then, (said Mr. K.,) that, if this claim was refused by Government from 1800 to 1824, it might reasonably be put down as doubtful. If from 1824 to 1832, we might put it down as very doubtful; and if passed through the generous year of 1832 without being allowed, we might with much reason venture to consider it desperate, and unworthy the attention of any tribunal or Government. He had not, however, depended entirely upon these strong circumstances against the claims, but had listened attentively to the speeches for and against them, and had revived his recollection of the most material historical facts upon which they rested, and his first unfavorable impressions were fully confirmed, and he should vote against the bill. Though he fully concurred in the senti-colors; at the same time, I labor under a public obliga ments of the Senator from South Carolina, that if, notwithstanding the age and amount of the claims, they were really just, and the honor of the Government were involved in withholding them, the appropriation should be made, if it took the last dollar in the treasury, and forced us even to make new contributions to satisfy it. After Mr. KING had taken his seat, Mr. BIBB expressed a wish to address the Chair; when, On motion of Mr. KING, of Alabama, The Senate adjourned. FRIDAY, JANUARY 9. Among the bills taken up to-day, was that for the relief of LOAMI BALDWIN. [The object of this bill was to make compensation to Mr. Baldwin for services rendered during the administration of Mr. Adams, as a civil engineer, in the construction of two dry docks at Charleston, S. C.] Mr. HILL moved to lay the bill on the table; which was not agreed to. Mr. HILL and Mr. BENTON then opposed the bill on the ground that Mr. Baldwin was an engineer in the employment of the Government, at an annual salary of $4,000; that this allowance would be double pay for services rendered by a salaried officer; that the claim had been disallowed by the Secretary, and afterwards by the auditor; and that, if a contract had been made with Mr. Baldwin for this service, it was no doubt in writing, ⚫ and ought to be shown. Some further remarks were made by Messrs. SOUTHARD, FRELINGHUYSEN, CALHOUN, POINDEXTER, and CLAYTON, in favor of the bill. It was said by them that an express contract was made with Mr. Baldwin by the then Secretary of the Navy (Mr. Southard) for the performance of this duty, which was an extra service; that he was not an officer of the Government, because he held no commission; but that, if he was, it had been the usage of the Government to pay its officers extra compensation for any services which they were called on to render, out of the line of their ordinary duties; that the justice of this claim was enhanced, in consequence of the contract which had been made with Mr. Baldwin, to pay him five dollars a day for the time employed in performing the duty assigned him. The question being on the engrossment of the bill for a third reading, Mr. HILL demanded the yeas and nays, which were ordered; but before the question was taken, Mr. BENTON renewed the motion to lay the bill on the table, with a view to make some further examination into it. The motion was then agreed to. In rising to give an expression of my views and feelings on the measure proposed by this bill, I find, sir, that my labor has been very much abridged by the clear and enlightened views which we have had presented to us on this important subject, by the gentlemen from New Hampshire, New York, and Georgia. To the former of these gentlemen, and, indeed, to all of them, I confess that I lie under the deepest personal obligation: they have done justice to the subject; they have placed it in its real light, and exhibited it in its proper tion to those gentlemen, because, sir, they have done much to enlighten the American people on this momentous, this deeply important question. The whole stress of the question lies in a few simple facts, which, if disembarrassed from the confusion of terms and conditions, and viewed in their plain and true character, render it difficult not to arrive at a just and correct view of the case. The advocates of this measure have no other grounds to rest their case upon than an assumption of facts; they assume that the United States lay under binding and onerous stipulations to France; that the claims of this bill were recognised by France; and that the United States made herself responsible for these claims, instead of France; took them upon herself, and became bound to pay them, in consideration of getting rid of the burdens which weighed upon her. It is assumed that the claims were good when the United States abandoned them; and that the consideration, which it is pretended the United States received, was of a nature to make her fully responsible to the claimants, and to render it obligatory upon her to satisfy the claims. The measure rests, sir, entirely upon these assumptions; but, sir, I shall show that they are nothing more than assumptions; that these claims were not recognised by France, and could not be, by the law of nations; they were good for nothing when they were made; they were good for for nothing no when we abandoned them. The United States owed nothing to France, and received no consideration whatever from her, to make us responsible payment. What I here maintain, I shall proceed to prove, not by any artful chain of argument, but by plain and historical facts, for Let me ask, sir, on what grounds is it maintained that the United States received a valuable consideration for these claims? Under what onerous stipulations did she lie? in what did her debt consist, which it is alleged France gave up in payment for these claims? By the treaty of '78, the United States was bound to guaranty the French American possessions to France; and France, on her part, guarantied to the United States her sovereignty and territory. In '93 the war between Great Britain and France broke out, and this rupture between those nations immediately gave rise to the question how far this guarantee was obligatory upon the United States? Whether we were bound by it to protect France on the side of her American possessions against any hostile attack of Great Britain, and thus become involved as subalterns in a war in which we had no concern or interest whatever? Here, sir, we come to the point at once; for if it should appear that we were not bound by this guarantee to become parties to a distant European war, then, sir, it will be an evident, a decided result and concision, that we were under no obligation to France, we owed her no debt on account of this guarantee; and, plainly enough, it will follow, we received no valuable consideration for the claims of this bill, when France released us from an obligation which it will appear we never owed. Let us briefly see, sir, how the case stands. Sir, France, to get rid of claims made by us, puts forward counter claims under this guarantee, proposing by such a diplomatic manœuvre to get rid of our demand, the injustice of which she protested against. She succeeded, and both parties abandoned their claims. And is it now, sir, to be urged upon us that, on the grounds of this astute diplomacy, we actually received a valuable consideration for claims which were considered good for nothing? France met our claims, which were good for nothing, by a counter claim, which was good for nothing, and when we found ourselves thus encountered, we abondoned our previous claim, in order to be released from the counter one opposed to it. After this, is it, I would ask, a suitable return for our overwrought anxiety to obtain satisfaction for our citizens, that any one of them should, some thirty years after this, turn round upon us and say: "now you have received a valuable consideration for our claims; now, then, you are bound to pay us!" But this is in fact, sir, the language of this bill. I unhesitatingly say that the guarantee, (a release from which is the pretended consideration by which the whole people of the United States are brought in debtors to a few ensurance offices to the amount of millions,) this guarantee, sir, I affirm, was good for nothing. I speak on no less authority, and in no less a name, than that of the great Father of his Country, Washington himself, when I affirm that this guarantee imposed upon us no obligations towards France. How, then, shall we be persuaded that, in virtue of this guarantee, we are bound to pay the debts and make good the spoliations of France? When the war broke out between Great Britain and France in 1793, Washington addressed to his cabinet a series of questions, inquiring their opinions on this very question, how far the treaty of guarantee of 1778 was obligatory upon the United States, intending to take their opinions as a guidance for his conduct in such a difficult situation. [Here the honorable Senator read extracts from Washington's queries to his cabinet, with some of the opinions themselves.] In consequence of the opinions of his cabinet concurring with his own sentiments, President Washington issued a proclamation of neutrality, disregarding the guarantee, and proclaiming that we were not bound by any preceding treaties to defend American France against Great Britain. The wisdom of this measure is a himWhat injuries ies infli from guarantee by which self solemnly pronounced do we now behold, sir? We behold an array in this House, and on this floor, against the policy of Washington! They seek to undo his deed; they condemn his principles; they call in question the wisdom and justice of his wise and paternal counsels; they urge against him that the guarantee bound us, and what for? What is the motive of this opposition against his measures? Why, sir, that this bill may pass; and the people, the burdenbearing people, be made to pay away a few millions, only a few millions, sir, in consideration of obligations which, after mature deliberation, Washington pronounced not to lie upon us! [SENATE. I think, sir, enough has been said to put to rest for ever the question of our obligations under this guarantee. Whatever the claims may be, it must be evident to the common sense of every individual, that we are not and cannot be bound to pay them in the stead of France, because of a pretended release from a guarantee which did not bind us; I say did not bind us, because, to have observed it, would have led to our ruin and destruction, and it is a clear principle of the law of nations, that a treaty is not obligatory when it is impossible to observe it. But, sir, leaving the question whether we were made responsible for the debts of France, whether we were placed under an obligation to atone to our own citizens for injuries which a foreign Power had committed; leaving this question as settled, (and I trust settled for ever,) I come, sir, to consider the claims themselves, their justice, and their validity. And here, sir, the principle of this bill will prove, on this head, as weak and untenable-nay, more-as outrageous to every idea of common sense, as it was on the former head. With what reason, I would ask, sir, can gentlemen press the American people to pay these claims, when it would be unreasohable to press France herself to pay them? If France, who committed the wrong, could not justly be called upon to atone for it, how in the world, sir, can the United States now be called upon for this money? In 1798, the treaty of peace with France was virtually abolished by various acts of Congress authorizing hostilities, and by proclamation of the President to the same effect; it was abolished on account of its violation by France; on account of those depredations which this bill calls upon us to make good. By those very acts of Congress we sought satisfaction for these very claims; and, having done so, it was too late afterwards to seek fresh satisfaction by demanding indemnity. There was war, sir, as the gentleman from Georgia Georg has clearly shown-war on account of these spoliations, and when we sought redress by acts of warfare, we precluded ourselves from the right of demanding redress by indemnity. We could not, therefore, justly urge these claims against France, and I therefore demand, sir, how can they be urged against us? What, sir, are the invincible arguments by which gentlemen establish the justice and validity of these claims? For, surely, before we consent to sweep away millions from the public treasury, we ought to hear at least some good reasons. Let me examine their good reasons. The argument, sir, to prove the validity of these claims, and that we are bound to pay them, is this: France acknowledged them, and the United States took them upon herself; that is, they were paid by way of offset, and the valuable consideration the United States received was a release from her pretend ed obligations! Now, sir, let us see how France ac knowledged them. These very claims, sir, were de nied, resisted, and rejected, by every successive Government of France! The law of nations was urged against them; because, having engaged in a state of war on the account of them, we had no right to a double redress-first by reprisals, and afterwards by indemnity! Besides, France justified her spoliations on the ground that we violated our neutrality; that the ships seized were laden with goods belonging to the English, the enemies of France, and it is well known, sir, that, in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred, this was the fact, that American citizens lent their names to the English, and were ready to risk all the dangers of French spoliation for sake of the great profits, which more than cov. ered the risk. And, in the face of all these facts, we are told, sir, that the French acknowledged the claims, paid them by a release, and we are now bound to satisfy them! And how is this proved, sir? Where are the invincible arguments by which the public treasury is to be emptied? Hear them, sir, if it is possible even to hear them with patience! When we urged these claims, the French negotiators set up a counter claim, and to obtain a release from this, we abandoned them! Thus, thus it is, sir, that the French acknowledged these claims; and, on this pretence, because of this diplomatic cunning and ingenuity, we are now told that the national honor calls on us to pay them! Was ever such a thing heard of before? Why, sir, if we pass this bill, we shall deserve eternal obloquy and disgrace from the whole American people. France, after repeatedly and perseveringly denying and resisting these claims, at last gets rid of them for ever by an ingen ingenious trick, and by pretending to acknowledge them, and now her debt (if it was a debt) is thrown upon us, and, in consequence of this little trick, the public treasury is to be tricked out of several millions! Sir, this is monstrous! I say it is outrageous! I intend no personal disrespect to any gentleman by these observations, but I must do my duty to my country, and I repeat it, sir, this is outrageous! It is streneously insisted upon, and appears to be firmly relied upon by gentlemen who have advocated this measure, that the United States has actually received from France full consideration for these claims; in a word, that France has paid them! I have, sir, already shown, by historical facts, by the law of nations, and, further, by the authority and actions of Washington himself, the Father of his Country, that we were placed under no obligations to France by the treaty of guarantee, and that therefore a release from obligations which did not exist, is no valuable consideration to all! But, sir, how can it be urged upon us that France actually paid us for claims which were denied and resisted, when we all know very well that, for undisputed claims, for claims acknowledged by treaty, for claims solemnly engaged to be paid, we could never succeed in getting one farthing! I thank the Senator from New Hampshire, [Mr. HILL,] for the enlightened view he has given on this case. What, sir, was the conduct of Napoleon with respect to money? He had bound himself to pay us twenty millions of francs, and he would not pay one farthing! And yet, sir, we are confindetly assured by the advocates of this bill that these claims were paid to us by Napoleon! When Louisiana was sold he ordered Marbois to get fifty millions, and did not even then, sir, intend to pay us out of that sum the twenty millions he had bound himself by treaty to pay. Marbois succeeded in getting thirty millions of francs more from us, and from this the twenty millions due was deducted; thus, sir, we were made to pay ourselves our own due, and Napoleon escaped the payment of a farthing. I mean to make no reflection upon our negotiators at that treaty; we may be glad that we got Louisiana at any amount; for if we had not obtained it by money; we should soon have possessed it by blood: the young West, like a lion, would have sprung upon the delta of the Mississippi, and we should have had an earlier edition of the battle of New Orleans. It is not to be regretted, therefore, that we gained Louisiana by negotiation, although we paid our debts ourselves in that bargain. But, sir, Napoleon absolutely scolded Marbois for allowing the deduction of twenty millions out of the sum we paid for Louisiana, forgetting that his minister had got thirty millions more than he ordered him to ask, and that we had paid ourselves the twenty millions due to us under treaty. Having such a man to deal with, how can it be maintain ed on this floor that the United States has been paid by him the claims in this bill, and that therefore the treasury is bound to satisfy them? Let Senators, I entreat them, but ask themselves the question, what these claims were worth in the view of Napoleon, that they may not form such an unwarranted conclusion as to think he ever JAN. 9, 1835. ceded him had treated them as English claims, and is it likely that he who refused to pay claims subsequent to these, under treaty signed by himself, would pay old claims anterior to 1800? The claims were not worth a straw; they were considered as lawful spoliations; that by our proclamation we had broken the neutrality; and, after all, that they were incurred by English enterprises, covered by the American flag. It is pretended he acknowledged them! Would he have inserted two lines in the treaty to rescind them, to get rid of such claims, when he would not pay those he had acknowledged? To recur once more, sir, to the valuable consideration which it is pretended we received for these claims. It is maintained that we were paid by receiving a release from onerous obligations imposed upon us by the treaty of guarantee, which obligations I have already shown that the great Washington himself pronounced to be nothing; and therefore, sir, it plainly follows that this valuable consideration was-nothing! What, sir! Is it said we were released from obligations? From what obligations, I would ask, were we relieved? From the obligation of guarantying to France her American possessions; from the obligation of conquering St. Domingo for France! From an impossibility, sir! for do we not know that this was impossible to the fleets and armies of France, under Le Clerc, the brother-inlaw of Napoleon himself? Did they not perish miserably by the knives of infuriated negroes and the desolating ravages of pestilence? Again, we were released from the obligation of restoring Guadaloupe to the French; which also was not possible unless we had entered into a war with Great Britain! And thus, sir, the valuable consideration, the release by which these claims are said to be fully paid to the United States, turns out to be a release from nothing! a release from absolute impossibilities; for it was not possible to guaranty to France her colonies; she lost them, and there was nothing to guaranty; it was a one-sided guarantee! She surrendered them by treaty, and there is nothing for the guarantee to operate on. The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. KING] has given a vivid and able picture of the exertions of the United States Government in behalf of these claims. He has shown, sir, that they have been paid, and more than paid, on our part, by the invaluable blood of our citizens! Such, indeed sir, is the fact. What has not been done by the United States on behalf of these claims! For these very claims, for the protection of those very claimants, we underwent an incredible expense both in military and naval armaments. [Here the honorable Senator read a long list of military and naval preparations made by Congress for the protection of these claims, specifying the dates and the numbers.] Nor did the United States confine herself solely to these strenuous exertions and expensive armaments: besides raising fleets and armies, she sent across the Atlantic embassies, ambassadors, and agents; she gave letters of marque, by which every injured individual might take his own remedy and repay himself his losses. For these very claims, sir, the people were laden at that period with heavy taxes, besides the blood of our people which was spilt for them. Loans were raised at eight per cent. to obtain redress for these claims; and what, sir, was the consequence? It overturned the men in power at that period: this it was which produced that result, more than political differences. The people were taxed and suffered for these same claims in that day, and now they are brought forward again to exhaust the public treasury again, to sweep away more millions yet from the people, to impose taxes again upon them, for the very same claims for which the paid them. Every Government of France which pre-people have already once been taxed; reviving the sys tem of '98, to render loans and debts and encumbrances again to be required; to embarrass the Government, entangle the State, to impoverish the people; to dig, in a word, by gradual measures of this description, a pit to plunge the nation headlong into inextricable difficulty and ruin! The Government in those days performed its duty to the citizens in the protection of their commerce, and by vindicating, asserting, and satisfying these claims; it left nothing undone which now is to be done; the pretensions of this bill are therefore utterly unfounded! Duties are reciprocal: the duty of Government is protection, and that of citzens allegiance. This bill attempts to throw upon the present Government the duties and expenses of a former Government, which have been already once acquitted. On its part, Government has fulfilled, with energy and zeal, its duty to the citizens; it has protected and now is protecting their rights, and asserting their just claims. Witness our navy, kept up in time of peace, for the protection of commerce and for the profit of our citizens; witness our cruisers on every point of the globe, for the security of citizens pursuing every kind of lawful business. But, sir, there are limits to the protection of the interests of individual citizens; peace must at one time or other be obtained, and sacrifices are to be made for a valuable consideration. Now, sir, peace is a valuable consideration, and claims are often necessarily abandoned to obtain it. In 1814 we gave up claims for the sake of peace; we gave up claims for Spanish spoliations at the treaty of Florida; we gave up claims to Denmark. These claims also were given up, long anterior to the others I have mentioned. When peace is made, the claims take their chance; some are given up for a gross sum, and some, such as these, when they are worth nothing will fetch nothing. How monstrous, therefore, sir, that measure is, which would transfer abandoned and disputed claims from the country, by which they were said to be due, to our own country, to our own Government, upon our own citizens, requiring us to pay what others owed, (nay, what it is doubtful if they did owe;) requiring us to pay what we have never received one farthing for, and for which, if we had received millions, sir, we have paid away more than those millions in ardous exertions on their behalf! I should not discharge the duty I owe to my country, if I did not probe still deeper into these transactions. What, sir, were the losses which led to these claims? Gentlemen have indulged themselves in all the flights and raptures of poetry on this pathetic topic; we have heard of "ships swept from the ocean, families plunged in want and ruin," and such like! What is the fact, sir? It is as the gentleman from New Hampshire has said: never, sir, was there known, before or since, such a flourishing state of commerce as the very time and period of these spoliations. At that time, sir, men made for tunes if they saved one ship only out of every four or five from the French cruisers! Let us examine the stubborn facts of sober arithmetic in this case, and not sit still and see the people's money charmed out of the treasury by the persuasive notes of poetry. (Mr. B. here referred to public documents showing that, in the years 1793, 94, '95, 196, 197, 198, 199, up to 1800, the exports annually increased at a rapid rate, till, in 1800, they amounted to more than $91,000,000.) [SENATE. metic which blow away the edifice of the gentlemen's poetry, as the wind scatters straws. With respect to the parties in whose hands these claims are. They are in the hands of ensurance offices, asignees, and jobbers; they are in the hands of the knowing ones who have bought them up for two, three, five, ten cents in the dollar! What has become of the screaming babes that have been held up after the ancient Roman method, to excite pity and move our sympathies? What has become of the widows and original claimants? They have been bought out long ago by the knowing ones. If we countenance this bill, sir, we shall renew the disgraceful scenes of 1793, and witness a repetition of the infamous fraud and gambling, and all the old artifices which the certificate funding act gave rise to. (Mr. B. here read several interesting extracts, describing the scenes which then took place.) One of the most revolting features of this bill is its relation to the ensurers. The most infamous and odious act ever passed by Congress was the certificate funding act of 1793, an act passed in favor of a crowd of speculators; but the principle of this bill is more odious than even it; I mean, sir, that of paying ensurers for their losses. The United States, sir, ensure! Can any thing be conceived more revolting and atrocious than to direct the funds of the treasury, the property of the people, to such iniquitous uses? On what principle is this grounded? Their occupation is a safe one; they make calculations against all probabilities; they make fortunes at all times; and especially at this very time when we are called upon to refund their losses, they made immense fortunes. It would be far more just and equitable if Congress were to ensure the farmers and planters, and pay them their losses on the failure of the cotton crop; they, sir, are more entitled to put forth such claims than speculators and gamblers, whose trade and business it is to make money by losses. This bill, if passed, would be the most odious and unprincipled ever passed by Congress. Another question, sir, occurs to me: what sum of money will this bill abstract from the treasury? It says five millions, it is true; but it does not say "and no more," it does not say that they will be in full. If the project of passing this bill should succeed, not only will claims be made, but next will come interest upon them! Reflect, sir, one moment: interest from 1798 and 1800 to this day! Nor is there any limitation of the amount of claims; no, sir, it would not be possible for the imagination of man, to invent more cunning words than the wording of this bill. It is made to cover all sorts of claims; there is no kind of specification adequate to exclude them; the most illegal claims will be admitted by its loose phraseology! Again, sir, suffer me to call your attention to another feature of this atrocious measure; let me warn my country of the abyss which it is attempted to open before it, by this and other similar measures of draining and exhausting the public treasury! These claims, sir; these claims rejected and spurned by France; these claims for which we have never received one single cent, all the payment ever made for them urged upon us by their advocates being a metaphysical and imaginary payment; these claims which, under such deceptive circumstances as these, we, sir, are called upon to pay, and to pay to ensurers, usurers, gamblers, and speculators; these monstrous claims, sir, which are foisted upon the American people, let me ask, how are they to be adjudged by this bill? Is it credible, sir? They are to be tried by an ex parte tribunal! Commissioners are to be appointed, and then, once seated in this berth, they are to give away and dispose of the public money according to the cases proved! No doubt, sir, they will be all honorable men. I do not It must be taken into consideration that at this period our population was less than it is now, our territory was much more limited, we had not Louisiana and the port of New Orleans, and yet our commerce was far more flourishing than it ever has been since, and at a time, too, when we had no mammoth banking corporation to boast of its indispensable, its vital necessity to commerce! These, sir, are the facts of numbers, of arith-dispute that! No doubt it will be utterly impossible to |