individual claims, bring forward, also, claims arising under treaties; taking care, thus early, to advance the pretensions of France on account of alleged violations by the United States of the treaties of 1778. On that part of the case, I shall say something hereafter; but I use this first letter of the French ministers at present only to show that, from the first, the French Government admitted its obligation to indemnify individuals who had suffered wrongs and injuries.

The honorable member from New York (Mr. WRIGHT) contends, Sir, that, at the time of concluding the treaty, these claims had ceased to exist. He says that a war had taken place between the United States and France, and by the war the claims had become extinguished. I differ from the honorable member, both as to the fact of war, and as to the consequences to be deduced from it, in this case, even if public war had existed. If we admit, for argument sake, that war had existed, yet we find that, on the restoration of amity, both parties admit the justice of these claims, and their continued existence; and the party against which they are preferred acknowledges her obligation, and expresses her willingness, to pay them. The mere fact of war can never extinguish any claim. If, indeed, claims for indemnity be the professed ground of a war, and peace be afterwards concluded without obtaining any acknowledgment of the right, such a peace may be construed to be a relinquishment of the right, on the ground that the question has been put to the arbitration of the sword, and decided. But, if a war be waged to enforce a disputed claim, and it be carried on till the adverse party admit the claim, and agree to provide for its payment, it would be strange, indeed, to hold that the claim itself was extinguished by the very war which had compelled its express recognition. Now, whatever we call that state of things which existed between the United States and France, from 1798 to 1800, it is evident that neither party contended or supposed that it had been such a state of things as had extinguished individual claims for indemnity for illegal seizures and confiscations.

The honorable member, Sir, to sustain his point, must prove that the United States went to war to vindicate these claims; that they waged that war unsuccessfully; and that they were therefore glad to make peace, without obtaining payment of the claims, or any admission of their justice. I am happy, Sir, to say, that, in my opinion, facts do not authorize any such record to be made up against the United States. I think it is clear, Sir, that, whatever misunderstanding existed between the United States and France, it did not amount, at any time, to open and public war. It is certain that the amicable relations of the two countries were much disturbed; it is certain that the United States authorized armed

resistance to French captures, and the captures of French vessels of war found hovering on our coast; but it is certain, also, not only that there was no declaration of war, on either side, but that the United States, under all their provocations, did never authorize general reprisals on French commerce. At the very moment when the gentleman says war raged between the United States and France, French citizens came into our courts, in their own names, claimed restitution for property seized by American cruisers, and obtained decrees of restitution. They claimed as citizens of France, and obtained restoration, in our courts, as citizens of France. It must have been a singular war, Sir, in which such proceedings could take place. Upon a fair view of the whole matter, Mr. President, it will be found, I think, that every thing done by the United States was defensive. No part of it was ever retaliatory. The United States did not take justice into their own hands.

The strongest measure, perhaps, adopted by Congress, was the act of May 28, 1798. The honorable member from New York has referred to this act, and chiefly relies upon it, to prove the existence, or the commencement, of actual war. But does it prove either the one or the other?

It is not an act declaring war; it is not an act authorizing reprisals; it is not an act, which, in any way, acknowledges the actual existence of war. Its whole implication and import is the other way. Its title is, "An act more effectually to protect the commerce and coasts of the United States."

This is its preamble :

"Whereas armed vessels, sailing under authority, or pretence of authority, from the Republic of France, have committed depredations on the commerce of the United States, and have recently captured the vessels and property of citizens thereof, on and near the coasts, in violation of the law of nations, and treaties between the United States and the French nation; therefore,"

And then follows its only section, in these words:

"Sec. 1. Be it enacted, &c. That it shall be lawful for the President of the United States, and he is hereby authorized, to instruct and direct the commanders of the armed vessels belonging to the United States, to seize, take, and bring into any port of the United States, to be proceeded against according to the laws of nations, any such armed vessel which shall have committed, or which shall be found hovering on the coasts of the United States for the purpose of committing, depredations on the vessels belonging to citizens thereof; and also retake any ship or vessel, of any citi

zen or citizens of the United States, which may have been captured by any such armed vessel."

This act, it is true, authorized the use of force, under certain circumstances, and for certain objects, against French vessels. But there may be acts of authorized force; there may be assaults; there may be battles; there may be captures of ships, and imprisonment of persons, and yet no general war. Cases of this kind may occur under that practice of retortion which is justified, when adopted for just cause, by the laws and usages of nations, and which all the writers distinguish from general war.

The first provision in this law is purely preventive and defensive; and the other hardly goes beyond it. Armed vessels, hovering on our coast, and capturing our vessels, under authority, or pretence of authority, from a foreign state, might be captured and brought in, and vessels already seized by them retaken. The act is limited to armed vessels; but why was this, if general war existed? Why was not the naval power of the country let loose, at once, if there were war, against the commerce of the enemy? The cruisers of France were preying on our commerce: if there was war, why were we restrained from general reprisals on her commerce? This restraining of the operation of our naval marine to armed vessels of France, and to such of them only as should be found hovering on our coast, for the purpose of committing depredations on our commerce, instead of proving a state of war, proves, I think, irresistibly, that a state of general war did not exist. But even if this act of Congress left the matter doubtful, other acts, passed at and near the same time, demonstrate the understanding of Congress to have been, that, although the relations between the two countries were greatly disturbed, yet that war did not exist. On the same day (May 28, 1798) in which this act passed, on which the member from New York lays so much stress, as proving the actual existence of war with France, Congress passed another act, entitled "An act authorizing the President of the United States to raise a provisional army; and the first section declared, that the President should be authorized, " in the event of a declaration of war against the United States, or of actual invasion over their territory, by a foreign power, or of imminent danger of such invasion, to cause to be enlisted," &c., ten thousand men.

On the 16th of July following, Congress passed the law for augmenting the army, the second section of which authorized the President to raise twelve additional regiments of infantry, and six troops of light dragoons, "to be enlisted for and during the continuance of the existing differences between the United States and the French Republic, unless sooner discharged," &c.

The following spring, by the act of the 2d March, 1799, entitled "An act giving eventual authority to the President of the United States to augment the army," Congress provided that it should be lawful for the President of the United States, in case war should break out between the United States and a foreign European power, &c., to raise twenty-four regiments of infantry, &c. And in the act for better organizing the army, passed the next day, Congress repeats the declaration contained in a former act, that certain provisions shall not take effect unless war shall break out between the United States and some European prince, potentate,

or state.

On the 20th of February, 1800, an act was passed to suspend the act for augmenting the army, and this last act declared, that further enlistments should be suspended until the further order of Congress, unless, in the recess of Congress, and during the continuance of the existing differences between the United States and the French Republic, war should break out between the United States and the French Republic, or imminent danger of invasion of their territory by the said republic, should be discovered.

On the 14th of May, 1800, four months before the conclusion of the treaty, Congress passed an act authorizing the suspension of military appointments, and the discharge of troops raised under the provisions of the previous laws. No commentary is necessary, Sir, on the texts of these statutes, to show that Congress never recognized the existence of war between the United States and France. They apprehended war might break out; and they made suitable provision for that exigency, should it occur; but it is quite impossible to reconcile the express and so often repeated declarations of these statutes, commencing in 1798, running through 1799, and ending in 1800, with the actual existence of war between the two countries, at any period within those years.

The honorable member's second principal source of argument, to make out the fact of a state of war, is the several non-intercourse acts. And here, again, it seems to me, an exactly opposite inference is the true one. In 1798, 1799, and 1800, acts of Congress were passed, suspending the commercial intercourse between the United States and France, each for one year. Did any government ever pass a law of temporary non-intercourse with a public enemy? Such a law would be little less than an absurdity. War itself effectually creates non-intercourse. It renders all trade with the enemy illegal, and of course subjects all vessels found so engaged, with their cargoes, to capture and condemnation, as enemy's property. The first of these laws was passed June 13th, 1798; the last, February 27, 1800. Will the honorable member from New York tell us when the war commenced? When did it break out? When did those "differences," of which the acts of Congress

speak, assume a character of general hostility? Was there a state of war on the 13th of June, 1798, when Congress passed the first non-intercourse act? and did Congress, in a state of public war, limit non-intercourse with the enemy to one year? Or was there a state of peace, in June, 1798? And if so, I ask again, At what time, after that period, and before September, 1800, did the war break out? Difficulties of no small magnitude surround the gentleman, I think, whatever course he takes through these statutes, while he attempts to prove from them a state of war. The truth is, they prove, incontestably, a state of peace; a state of endangered, disturbed, agitated peace; but still a state of peace. Finding themselves in a state of great misunderstanding and contention with France, and seeing our commerce a daily prey to the rapacity of her cruisers, the United States preferred non-intercourse to war. This is the ground of the non-intercourse acts. Apprehending, nevertheless, that war might break out, Congress made prudent provision for it, by augmenting the military force of the country. This is the ground of the laws for raising a provisional army. The entire provisions of all these laws necessarily suppose an existing state of peace; but they imply also an apprehension that war might commence. For a state of actual war they were all unsuited; and some of them would have been, in such a state, preposterous and absurd. To a state of present peace, but disturbed, interrupted, and likely to terminate in open hostilities, they were all perfectly well adapted. And as many of these acts, in express terms, speak of war as not actually existing, but as likely or liable to break out, it is clear, beyond all reasonable question, that Congress never, at any time, regarded the state of things existing between the United States and France as being a state of war.

As little did the Executive Government so regard it, as must be apparent from the instructions given to our ministers, when the mission was sent to France. Those instructions, having recurred to the numerous acts of wrong committed on the commerce of the United States, and the refusal of indemnity by the Government of France, proceed 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 calculated to protect their commerce."

It is equally clear, on the other hand, that neither the French Government, nor the French ministers, acted on the supposition. that war had existed between the two nations. And it was for this reason that they held the treaties of 1778 still binding. Within a month or two of the signature of the treaty, the ministers pleni