I have already spoken of Guaranty as an essential condition.
Indemnity is not essential. At the close of our war with Slavery
we said nothing of indemnity. For the life of the citizen there
could be no indemnity; nor was it practicable even for the
treasure sacrificed. Security for the Future was all that our
nation required, and this was found in provisions of Law and
Constitution establishing Equal Eights. From various intimations
it is evident that Germany will not be content without indemnity
in money on a large scale; and it is also evident that France, the
aggressor, cannot, when conquered, deny liability to a certain
extent. The question will be on the amount. Already German
calculators begin to array their unrelenting figures. One of these
insists that the indemnity shall not only cover outlay for the
German Army,--pensions of widows and invalids,--maintenance and
support of French wounded and prisoners,--compensation to Germans
expelled from France,--also damage suffered by the territory to be
annexed, especially Strasbourg; but it is also to cover indirect
damages, large in amount,--as, loss to the nation from change of
productive laborers into soldiers,--loss from killing and
disabling so many laborers,--and, generally, loss from suspension
of trade arid manufactures, depreciation of national property, and
diminution of the public revenues:--all of which, according to a
recent estimate, reach the fearful sum-total of 4,935,000,000
francs, or nearly one thousand million dollars. Of this sum,
1,255,000,000 francs are on account of the Army, 1,230,000,000 for
direct damage, 2,250,000,000 for indirect damage, and 200,000,000
for damage to the reconquered provinces. Still further, the Berlin
Chamber of Commerce insists on indemnity not only for actual loss
of ships and cargoes from the blockade, but also for damages on
account of detention. Much of this many-headed account, which I
introduce in order to open the case in its extent, will be opposed
by France, as fabulous, consequential, and remote. The practical
question will be, Can one nation do wrong to another without
paying for the damage, whatever it may be, direct or indirect,--
always provided it be susceptible of estimate? Here I content
myself with the remark, that, while in the settlement of
international differences there is no place for technicality,
there is always room for moderation.