of robbery, and, as they must have supposed, of murder, before they could have ascertained whether the stain of blood was not on their garments? They remained in the place a part of the next day. The town was alarmed; a strict inquiry was made of all strangers, and of the defendants among others. Nothing suspicious was discovered. They avoided no inquiry, nor left the town in any haste. The jury had had an opportunity of seeing the defendants. Did their general appearance indicate that hardihood which would enable them to act this cool, unconcerned part? Was it not more likely they would have fled?

From the time of the robbery to the arrest, five or six weeks, the defendants had been engaged in their usual occupations. They are not found to have passed a dollar of money to any body. They continued their ordinary habits of labor. No man saw money about them, nor any circumstance that might lead to a suspicion that they had money. Nothing occurred tending in any degree to excite suspicions against them. When arrested, and when all this array of evidence was made against them, and when they could hope in nothing but their innocence, immunity was offered them again if they would confess. They were pressed, and urged, and allured, by every motive which could be set before them, to acknowledge their participation in the offence, and to bring out their accomplices. They steadily protested that they could confess nothing, because they knew nothing. In defiance of all the discoveries made in their house, they have trusted to their innocence. On that, and on the candor and discernment of an enlightened jury, they still relied.

If the jury were satisfied, that there was the highest improbability that these persons could have had any previous knowledge of Goodridge, or been concerned in any previous concert to rob him; if their conduct that evening and the next day was marked by no circumstances of suspicion; if, from that moment until their arrest, nothing appeared against them; if they neither passed money, nor are found to have had money; if the manner of the search of their house, and the circumstances attending it, excite strong suspicions of unfair and fraudulent prac tices; if, in the hour of their utmost peril, no promises of safety could draw from the defendants any confessions affecting themselves or others, it would be for the jury to say whether they could pronounce them guilty.

SPEECH

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, JANUARY 12, 1835, ON THE BILL GRANTING INDEMNITY TO CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES FOR FRENCH SPOLIATIONS ON AMERICAN COMMERCE PRIOR TO 1800.

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

At the last session, an honorable member of the Senate, now in a public capacity at St. Petersburg, introduced a bill for the relief of the petitioners, and moved the appointment of a committee, declining himself to be a member of that committee. Without any wish of mine, and, indeed, without my knowledge, for I was not then in the city, the Senate was pleased to place me at the head of that committee. I thought it my duty, then, to introduce the bill which is now again under consideration.

This, said Mr. Webster, is no party question: it involves no party principles; affects no party interests; seeks no party ends or objects; and as it is a question of private right and justice, it would be flagrant wrong and injustice to attempt to give to it, any

where, the character of a party measure. The petitioners, the sufferers under the French spoliations, belong to all parties. Gentlemen of distinction, of all parties, have at different times maintained the justice of the claim. The present bill is intended for the equal relief of all sufferers; and if the measure shall become a party measure, I, for one, shall not pursue it. It will be wiser to leave it till better auspices shall appear.

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

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

It ought not to be objected to these petitioners, that their claim is old, or that they are now reviving any thing which has heretofore been abandoned. There has been no delay which is not reasonably accounted for. The treaty, by which the claimants say their claims on France for these captures and confiscations were released, was concluded in 1800. They immediately applied to Congress for indemnity, as will be seen by the report made in 1802, in the House of Representatives, by a committee, of which a distinguished member from Virginia, not now living (Mr. GILES), was chair

man.

In 1807, on the petition of sundry merchants and others, citizens of Charleston, in South Carolina, a committee of the House of Representatives, of which Mr. Marion, of that state, was chairman, made a report, declaring that the committee was of opinion that the Government of the United States was bound to indemnify the claimants. But at this time our affairs with the European powers at war had become exceedingly embarrassed; our Government had felt itself compelled to withdraw our commerce from the ocean; and it was not until after the conclusion of the war of 1812, and after the general pacification of Europe, that a suitable opportunity occurred of presenting the subject again to the serious consideration

of Congress. From that time the petitioners have been constantly before us, and the period has at length arrived proper for a final decision of their case.

Another objection, Sir, has been urged against these claims, well calculated to diminish the favor with which they might otherwise be received, and which is without any substantial foundation in fact. It is, that a great portion of them has been bought up, as a matter of speculation; and it is now holden by these purchasers. It has even been said, I think, on the floor of the Senate, that nine tenths, or ninety hundredths, of all the claims, are owned by speculators.

Such unfounded statements are not only wholly unjust towards these petitioners themselves, but they do great mischief to other interests. I have observed that a French gentleman of distinction, formerly a resident in this country, is represented in the public newspapers as having declined the offer of a seat in the French administration, on the ground that he could not support the American treaty; and he could not support the treaty, because he had learned, or heard, while in America, that the claims were no longer the property of the original sufferers, but had passed into unworthy hands. If any such thing has been learned in the United States, it has been learned from sources entirely incorrect. The general fact is not so; and this prejudice, thus operating on a great national interest,—an interest, in regard to which we are in danger of being seriously embroiled with a foreign state,—was created, doubtless, by the same incorrect and unfounded assertions which have been made relative to this other class of claims.

In regard to both classes, and to all classes of claims of American citizens on foreign governments, the statement is at variance with the facts. Those who make it have no proof of it. On the contrary, incontrovertible evidence exists of the truth of the very reverse of this statement. The claims against France, since 1800, are now in the course of adjudication. They are all, or very nearly all, presented to the proper tribunal. Proofs accompany them, and the rules of the tribunal require that, in each case, the true ownership should be fully and exactly set out, on oath, and be proved by the papers, vouchers, and other evidence. Now, Sir, if any man is acquainted, or will make himself acquainted, with the proceedings of this tribunal, so far as to see who are the parties claiming the indemnity, he will see the absolute and enormous error of those who represent these claims to be owned, in great part, by speculators.

The truth is, Sir, that these claims, as well those since 1800 as before, are owned and possessed by the original sufferers, with such changes only as happen in regard to all other property. The original owner of ship and cargo; his representative, where

such owner is dead; underwriters, who have paid losses, on account of captures and confiscations; and creditors of insolvents and bankrupts, who were interested in the claims, these are the descriptions of persons, who, in all these cases, own vastly the larger portion of the claims. This is true of the claims on Spain, as is most manifest from the proceedings of the commissioners under the Spanish treaty. It is true of the claims on France arising since 1800, as is equally manifest by the proceedings of the commissioners now sitting; and it is equally true of the claims, which are the subject of this discussion, and provided for in this bill. In some instances, claims have been assigned, from one to another, in the settlement of family affairs. They have been transferred, in other instances, to secure or to pay debts; they have been transferred, sometimes, in the settlement of insurance accounts; and it is probable there are a few cases in which the necessities of the holders have compelled them to sell them. But nothing can be further from the truth, than that they have been the general subjects of purchase and sale, and that they are now holden mainly by purchasers from the original owners. They have been compared to the unfunded debt. But that consisted in scrip, of fixed amount, and which passed from hand to hand by delivery. These claims cannot so pass from hand to hand. In each case, not only the value, but the amount, is uncertain. Whether there be any claim, is, in each case, a matter for investigation and proof; and so is the amount, when the justice of the claim itself is established. These circumstances are of themselves quite sufficient to prevent the easy and frequent transfer of the claims from hand to hand. They would lead us to expect that to happen which actually has happened; and that is, that the claims remain with their original owners, and their legal heirs and representatives, with such exceptions as I have already mentioned. As to the portion of the claims now owned by underwriters, it can hardly be necessary to say, that they stand on the same equity and justice as if possessed and presented by the owners of ships and goods. There is no more universal maxim of law and justice, throughout the civilized and commercial world, than that an underwriter, who has paid a loss on ships or merchandise to the owner, is entitled to whatever may be received from the property. His right accrues by the very act of payment; and if the property, or its proceeds, be afterwards recovered, in whole or in part, whether the recovery be from the sea, from captors, or from the justice of foreign states, such recovery is for the benefit of the underwriter. Any attempt, therefore, to prejudice these claims, on the ground that many of them belong to insurance companies, or other underwriters, is at war with the first principles of justice.

A short but accurate general view of the history and character

VOL. II.

56