potentiary of the French Republic write thus to Messrs. Ellsworth, Davie, and Murray: "In the first place, they will insist upon the principle already laid down in their former note, viz. that the treaties which united France and the United States are not broken; that even war could not have broken them; but that the state of misunderstanding which has existed for some time between France and the United States, by the act of some agents, rather than by the will of the respective Governments, has not been a state of war, at least on the side of France."

Finally, Sir, the treaty itself-what is it? It is not called a treaty of peace; it does not provide for putting an end to hostilities. It says not one word of any preceding war; but it does say that "differences" have arisen between the two states, and that they have therefore respectively appointed their plenipotentiaries, and given them full powers to treat upon those "differences," and to terminate the same.

But the second article of the treaty, as negotiated and agreed on by the ministers of both Governments, is, of itself, a complete refutation of the whole argument which is urged against this bill, on the ground that the claims had been extinguished by war; since that article distinctly and expressly acknowledges the exist ence of the claims, and contains a solemn pledge that the two Governments, not being able to agree on them at present, will negotiate further on them, at convenient time thereafter. Whether we look, then, to the decisions of the American courts, to the acts of Congress, to the instructions of the American Executive Government, to the language of our ministers, to the declarations of the French Government, and the French ministers, or to the unequivocal language of the treaty itself, as originally agreed to, we meet irresistible proof of the truth of the declaration, that the state of misunderstanding which had existed between the two countries

was not war.

If the treaty had remained as the ministers on both sides agreed upon it, the claimants, though their indemnity was postponed, would have had no just claim on their own Government. But the treaty did not remain in this state. This second article was stricken out by the Senate; and in order to see the obvious motive of the Senate, in thus striking out the second article, allow me to read the whole article. It is in these words :

"The ministers plenipotentiary of the two parties, not being able to agree, at present, respecting the treaty of alliance of the 6th of February, 1778, the treaty of amity and commerce, of the same date, and the convention of the 14th of November, 1788, nor upon the indemnities mutually due or claimed, the parties will negotiate further on these subjects at a convenient time; and until

they may have agreed upon these points, the said treaties and convention shall have no operation, and the relations of the two countries shall be regulated as follows."

The article thus stipulating to make the claims of France, under the old treaties, matter of further negotiation, in order to get rid of such negotiation, and the whole subject, the Senate struck out the entire article, and ratified the treaty in this corrected form. France ratified the treaty, as thus amended, with the further declaration, that, by thus retrenching the second article, the two nations renounce the respective pretensions which were the object of the article. In this declaration of the French Government, the Senate afterwards acquiesced; so that the Government of France, by this retrenchment, agreed to renounce her claims, under the treaties of 1778, and the United States, in like manner, renounced the claims of their citizens, for indemnities due to them.

And this proves, Sir, the second proposition which I stated, at the commencement of my remarks, viz. that these claims were released, relinquished, or extinguished by the amendment of the treaty, and its ratification, as amended. It is only necessary to add, on this point, that these claims for captures, before 1800, would have been good claims under the late treaty with France, and would have come in for a dividend in the fund provided by that treaty, if they had not been released by the treaty of 1800. And they are now excluded from all participation in the benefit of the late treaty, because of such release or extinguishment by that of 1800.

In the third place, Sir, it is to be proved, if it be not proved already, that these claims were surrendered, or released, by the Government of the United States, on national considerations, and for objects in which these claimants had no more interest than any other citizens.

Now, Sir, I do not feel called on to make out, that the claims and complaints of France against the Government of the United States were well founded. It is certain, that she put forth such claims and complaints, and insisted on them to the end. It is certain, that, by the treaty of alliance of 1778, the United States did guaranty to France her West India possessions. It is certain, that, by the treaty of commerce of the same date, the United States stipulated that French vessels of war might bring their prizes into the ports of the United States, and that the enemies of France should not enjoy that privilege; and it is certain, that France contended that the United States had plainly violated this article, as well by their subsequent treaty with England as by other acts of the Government. For the violation of these treaties, she claimed indemnity from the Government of the United States. Without

admitting the justice of these pretensions, the Government of the United States found them extremely embarrassing, and they authorized our ministers in France to buy them off by money.

For the purpose of showing the justice of the present bill, it is not necessary to insist that France was right in these pretensions. Right or wrong, the United States were anxious to get rid of the embarrassments which they occasioned. They were willing to compromise the matter. The existing state of things, then, was exactly this:

France admitted that citizens of the United States had just claims against her; but she insisted that she, on the other hand, had just claims against the Government of the United States.

She would not satisfy our citizens till our Government agreed to satisfy her. Finally, a treaty is ratified, by which the claims on both sides are renounced.

The only question is, whether the relinquishment of these individual claims was the price which the United States paid for the relinquishment, by France, of her claims against our Government. And who can doubt it? Look to the negotiation. The claims on both sides were discussed together. Look to the second article of the treaty, as originally agreed to. The claims on both sides are there reserved together; and look to the Senate's amendment, and to the subsequent declaration of the French Government, acquiesced in by the Senate; and there the claims on both sides are renounced together. What stronger proof could there be of mutuality of consideration? Sir, allow me to put this direct question to the honorable member from New York. If the United States did not agree to renounce these claims, in consideration that France would renounce hers, what was the reason why they surrendered thus the claims of their own citizens? Did they do it without any consideration at all? Was the surrender wholly gratuitous? Did they thus solemnly renounce claims for indemnity, so just, so long insisted on by themselves, the object of two special missions, the subjects of so much previous controversy, and at one time so near being the cause of open war-did the Government surrender and renounce them gratuitously, or for nothing? Had it no reasonable motive in the relinquishment? Sir, it is impossible to maintain any such ground.

And, on the other hand, let me ask, Was it for nothing that France relinquished, what she had so long insisted on, the obligation of the United States to fulfil the treaties of 1778? For the extinguishment of this obligation we had already offered her a large sum of money, which she had declined. Was she now willing to give up, without any equivalent?

Sir, the whole history of the negotiation is full of proof that the

individual claims of our citizens, and the Government claims of France against the United States, constituted the respective demands of the two parties. They were brought forward together, discussed together, insisted on together. The French ministers would never consent to disconnect them. While they admitted, in the fullest manner, the claims on our side, they maintained, with persevering resolution, the claims on the side of France. It would fatigue the Senate were I to go through the whole correspondence, and show, as I could easily do, that, in every stage of the negotiation, these two subjects were kept together. I will only refer to some of the more prominent and decisive parts.

In the first place, the general instructions which our ministers received from our own Government, when they undertook the mission, directed them to insist on the claims of American citizens against France-to propose a joint board of commissioners-to state those claims-and to agree to refer the complaints of France, for infringements of the treaty of commerce, to the same board. I will read, Sir, so much of the instructions as comprehend these points.

"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 treaty, 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 other property, under color of authority or commissions from the French Republic or its agents. And all captures and condemnations are deemed irregular or illegal, when contrary to the law of nations, generally received and acknowledged in Europe, and to the stipulations in the treaty of amity and commerce, of the sixth of February, 1778, fairly and ingenuously interpreted, while that treaty remained in force.

"Second. If these preliminaries should be satisfactorily arranged, then, for the purpose of examining and adjusting all the claims of our citizens, it will be necessary to provide for the appointment of a board of commissioners, similar to that described in the sixth and seventh articles of the treaty of amity and commerce between the United States and Great Britain.

"As the French Government have heretofore complained of infringements of the treaty of amity and commerce by the United States, or their citizens, all claims for injuries, thereby occasioned to France or its citizens, are to be submitted to the same board; and whatever damages they award, will be allowed by the United States, and deducted from the sums awarded to be paid by France."

Now, Sir, suppose this board had been constituted, and suppose that it had made awards against France, in behalf of citizens of the United States, and had made awards also in favor of the Government of France against the Government of the United States; and then these last awards had been deducted from the amount of the former, and the property of citizens thus applied to discharge the public obligations of the country,-would any body doubt that such citizens would be entitled to indemnity? And are they less entitled, because, instead of being first liquidated and ascertained, and then set off, one against the other, they are finally agreed to be set off against each other, and mutually relinquished in the lump?

Acting upon their instructions, it will be seen that the American ministers made an actual offer to suspend the claim for indemnities, till France should be satisfied as to her political rights under the treaties. On the 15th of July, they made this proposition to the French negotiators :

"Indemnities to be ascertained, and secured, in the manner proposed in our project of a treaty, but not to be paid until the United States shall have offered to France an article stipulating free admission, in the ports of each, for the privateers and prizes of the other, to the exclusion of their enemies."

This, it will be at once seen, was a direct offer to suspend the claims of our own citizens, till our Government should be willing to renew to France the obligation of the treaty of 1778. Was not this an offer to make use of private property for public purposes?

On the eleventh of August, the French plenipotentiaries thus write to the ministers of the United States :

"The propositions which the French ministers have the honor to communicate to the ministers plenipotentiary of the United States, are reduced to this simple alternative :

"Either the ancient treaties, with the privileges resulting from priority, and a stipulation of reciprocal indemnities;

"Or a new treaty, assuring equality, without indemnity.”

In other words, this offer is, "If you will acknowledge or renew the obligation of the old treaties, which secure to us privileges in your ports, which our enemies are not to enjoy, then we will make indemnities for the losses of your citizens; or, if you will give up all claim for such indemnities, then we will relinquish our especial privileges, under the former treaties, and agree to a new treaty,