FRENCH SPOLIATIONS--MR. BENTON'S SPEECH.
"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 recognized 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 entirely upon these assumptions; but I shall show
that they are nothing more than assumptions; that these claims were
not recognized by France, and could not be, by the law of nations;
they were good for nothing when they were made; they were good for
nothing when we abandoned them. The United States owed nothing to
France, and received no consideration whatever from her, to make
us responsible for payment. What I here maintain, I shall proceed
to prove, not by any artful chain of argument, but by plain and
historical facts.
"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 guarantee the
French American possessions to France; and France, on her part,
guaranteed 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 guaranty 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 we come to the point at once; for if it
should appear that we were not bound by this guaranty to become
parties to a distant European war, then, sir, it will be an evident,
a decided result and conclusion, that we were under no obligation
to France--that we owed her no debt on account of this guaranty;
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 how the case stands.
"France, to get rid of claims made by us, puts forward counter
claims under this guaranty; proposing by such a diplomatic manoeuvre
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 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 abandoned 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 over-wrought 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 guaranty (a release from which is
the pretended consideration by which the whole people of the
United States are brought in debtors to a few insurance offices to
the amount of millions), this guaranty, 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 guaranty imposed upon us no obligations
towards France. How, then, shall we be persuaded that, in virtue
of this guaranty, 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
guaranty 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 guaranty, and proclaiming that we
were not bound by any preceding treaties to defend American France
against Great Britain. The wisdom of this measure is apparent. He
wisely thought it was not prudent our infant Republic should become
absorbed in the vortex of European politics; and therefore, sir, not
without long and mature deliberation how far this treaty of guaranty
was obligatory upon us, he pronounced against it; and in so doing
he pronounced against the very bill before us; for the bill has
nothing to stand upon but this guaranty; it pretends that the United
States is bound to pay for injuries inflicted by France, because
of a release from a guaranty by which the great Washington himself
solemnly pronounced we were not bound! What 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 guaranty 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 burden-bearing people, be made to pay away a few millions, in
consideration of obligations which, after mature deliberation,
Washington pronounced not to lie upon us!
"I think, sir, enough has been said to put to rest for ever the
question of our obligations under this guaranty. 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 guaranty
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 to consider the claims themselves, their justice, and their
validity. And here 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, can gentlemen press the American people to
pay these claims, when it would be unreasonable to press France
herself to pay them? If France, who committed the wrong, could not
justly be called upon to atone for it, how 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 acts of Congress we sought satisfaction
for these 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 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, how can they be urged against us?
What 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 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 pretended obligations! Now, sir, let us
see how France acknowledged them. These very claims were denied,
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, 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 covered the risk. And, in the
face of all these facts, we are told that the French acknowledged
the claims, paid them by a release, and we are now bound to satisfy
them! And how is this proved? Where are the invincible arguments
by which the public treasury is to be emptied? Hear them, 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 it is 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 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 strenuously 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 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 guaranty; and that, therefore, a release from obligations
which did not exist, is no valuable consideration at 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 confidently 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, 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 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 maintained 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 paid them. Every government of France
which preceded 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 guaranty, 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
guaranteeing 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-in-law 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 guarantee to France her
colonies; she lost them, and there was nothing to guarantee; it was
a one-sided guaranty! She surrendered them by treaty, and there is
nothing for the guaranty 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 that they have been paid, and more
than paid, on our part, by the invaluable blood of our citizens!
Such, indeed, 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 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
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 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 and to sweep away more millions yet from the people, to
impose taxes again upon them, for the very same claims for which the
people have already once been taxed; reviving the system 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 citizens 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, 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
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, 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, we have
paid away more than those millions in arduous 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 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, men made fortunes 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, '96, '97, '98, '99, up to 1800, the exports, annually
increased at a rapid rate, till, in 1800 they amounted to more than
$91,000,000].
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
are the facts of numbers, of arithmetic, 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 insurance offices, assignees, 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 insurers. 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 that of paying insurers for
their losses. The United States, sir, insure! 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 insure 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 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 rejected and spurned by France; these claims for which
we have never received one 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 insurers,
usurers, gamblers, and speculators; these monstrous claims 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 dispute that! No doubt it will be
utterly impossible to prove corruption, or bribery, or interested
motives, or partialities against them; nay, sir, no doubt it will be
dangerous to suspect such honorable men; we shall be replied to at
once by the indignant question, "are they not all honorable men?"
But to all intents and purposes this tribunal will be an _ex parte_,
a one-sided tribunal and passive to the action of the claimants.
Again, look at the species of evidence which will be invited to
appear before these commissioners; of what description will it be?
Here is not a thing recent and fresh upon which evidence, may be
gained. Here are transactions of thirty or forty years ago. The
evidence is gone, witnesses dead, memories failing, no testimony
to be procured, and no lack of claimants, notwithstanding. Then,
sir, the next best evidence, that suspicious and worthless sort of
evidence, will have to be restored to; and this will be ready at
hand to suit every convenience in any quantity. There could not be
a more effective and deeper plan than this devised to empty the
treasury! Here will be sixty millions exhibited as a lure for false
evidence, and false claims; an awful, a tremendous temptation for
men to send their souls to hell for the sake of money. On the behalf
of the moral interests of my country, while it may yet not be too
late, I denounce this bill, and warn Congress not to lend itself to
a measure by which it will debauch the public morals, and open a
wide gulf of wrong-doing and not-to-be-imagined evil!
The bill proposes the amount of only five millions, while, by the
looseness of its wording, it will admit old claims of all sorts
and different natures; claims long since abandoned for gross sums;
all will come in by this bill! One hundred millions of dollars
will not pay all that will be patched up under the cover of this
bill! In bills of this description we may see a covert attempt to
renew the public debt, to make loans and taxes necessary, and the
engine of loans necessary with them! There are those who would
gladly overwhelm the country in debt; that corporations might be
maintained which thrive by debt, and make their profits out of the
misery and encumbrances of the people. Shall the people be denied
the least repose from taxation? Shall all the labor and exertions
of government to extinguish the public debt be in vain? Shall its
great exertions to establish economy in the State, and do away
with a system of loans and extravagance, be thwarted and resisted
by bills of this insidious aim and character? Shall the people be
prevented from feeling in reality that we have no debt: shall they
only know it by dinners and public rejoicings? Shall such a happy
and beneficial result of wise and wholesome measures be rendered
all in vain by envious efforts to destroy the whole, and render it
impossible for the country to go on without borrowing and being in
debt?
* * * * *
The bill passed the Senate by a vote of 25 to 20; but failed in the
House of Representatives. It still continues to importune the two
Houses; and though baffled for fifty years, is as pertinacious as
ever. Surely there ought to be some limit to these presentations
of the same claim. It is a game in which the government has no
chance. No number of rejections decides any thing in favor of the
government; a single decision in their favor decides all against
them. Renewed applications become incessant, and endless; and
eventually must succeed. Claims become stronger upon age--gain
double strength upon time--often directly, by newly discovered
evidence--always indirectly, by the loss of adversary evidence, and
by the death of contemporaries. Two remedies are in the hands of
Congress--one, to break up claim agencies, by allowing no claim to
be paid to an agent; the other, to break up speculating assignments,
by allowing no more to be received by an assignee than he has
actually paid for the claim. Assignees and agents are now the great
prosecutors of claims against the government. They constitute a
profession--a new one--resident at Washington city. Their calling
has become a new industrial pursuit--and a most industrious
one--skilful and persevering, acting on system and in phalanx; and
entirely an overmatch for the succession of new members who come
ignorantly to the consideration of the cases which they have so well
dressed up. It would be to the honor of Congress, and the protection
of the treasury, to institute a searching examination into the
practices of these agents, to see whether any undue means are used
to procure the legislation they desire.