Monday, March 15.
French Spoliations.
Mr. Griswold said, that he hoped the resolution which he had laid on the table for indemnifying for French spoliations would be first taken up. It was important, before a decision was made on the repeal of the internal taxes, that the extent of indemnities made by Government should be known. He therefore moved a postponement of the bill on internal taxes till to-morrow, that, in the mean time, his motion might be acted upon. He concluded by desiring the yeas and nays.
The motion of Mr. Griswold is as follows:
"Resolved, That it is proper to make provision by law towards indemnifying the merchants of the United States for losses sustained by them from French spoliations, the claims for which losses have been renounced by the final ratification of the Convention with France, as published by proclamation of the President of the United States."
Mr. Lowndes observed, that it was nearly two months since the committee was raised, to whom had been committed the petitions of merchants praying indemnities; notwithstanding this length of time, the committee had not yet met. He hoped this resolution would induce the committee to meet.
Mr. S. Smith said, that he had presented the first petition on the subject of French spoliations, and that it had been immediately referred to a select committee, who, though they had made progress in the business committed to them, had not considered it fair to decide until all the petitions expected on the subject had been received. One indeed had been presented only this morning. Mr. S. asked if this mode was not perfectly just and fair? For himself, on this subject, he was precluded from voting, as he was deeply interested in the decision of the House. He mentioned this circumstance that the reason might be understood why particular gentlemen from different parts of the Union did not vote on this question in its several stages.
Mr. Lowndes said he did not consider the right of deciding the principle delegated to the select committee. That must be decided in the House. It was the duty of the committee barely to make arrangements to protect the House from imposition on the score of facts. If it shall be determined by the Government, that it is improper to make compensation—though he thought such a decision scarcely possible—the select committee may be discharged. If, on the other hand, it is thought proper to compensate, the committee may go into the investigation of details.
Mr. Mitchill felt it an obligation, that the case of those whom he had the honor to represent, and that of the other merchants in the United States, should be taken up and receive from this House the most deliberate and serious consideration. He had before submitted to the House his ideas on the proper course to be pursued, which it was not necessary for him to repeat. He would, however, observe, that the resolution now made was so broad as entirely to defeat its object. The first reference of this business was to a select committee instructed to examine all the papers and documents in relation to it, with an instruction to report their opinion to the House; on receiving which the House might be able to come to a decision. On the other hand, the present proposition goes to commit the House on the whole extent of the subject without any examination whatever.
Mr. M. said, he would suggest a few reasons, which satisfied his mind that a decision should not be too rapidly pressed. The vessels taken by the French admitted of various classifications. One class consisted of those that were captured before the dissolution of our treaty with France; another class, of those which were captured after that event; another class, of those that were captured by picaroons without commissions; and another class, where captures were made on account of contraband goods. All these classes involved distinct considerations; and when the subject was presented to the House in a form so complicated, was it proper precipitately to decide a principle that might bind the Government to make indemnity for all cases whatever?
Mr. M. said he had no doubt but that such property of the citizens of the United States as came fairly under the character of spoliated property, would be considered as a fit subject of indemnity. He was one of those who thought that in such cases payment ought to be made. He considered the merchants as a very important class of citizens, and that their interests ought to be protected. This he thought the more necessary from the consideration of the bill on the table, which, when passed, will render the Government very dependent on mercantile credit.
Mr. M. was of opinion that the best way of accomplishing the object of the merchants was not to precipitate the subject. On the other hand, he was of opinion that the best chance of success would arise from an examination of the various classes of spoliations, from separating them from each other, thereby enabling the House to act understandingly upon them. The resolution of the gentleman from Connecticut was so vague as not to be susceptible of any distinct meaning. He hoped, therefore, the subject would be suffered to undergo a full and deliberate investigation in the select committee, which he, as a member of that committee, assured the House was progressing as fast as a sense of justice and a regard to our merchants require.
Mr. Dana.—The object of the present motion is to take up the resolution of my colleague, and to take order upon it—not to decide definitely upon it. This being the true question, I hope the gentleman from New York will not think it improper in me to say that many of his remarks do not apply to it. As the question is not whether we shall immediately decide the point, but only place it in a train for decision, it must be discussed either in a Committee of the Whole, or in a select committee; and we ask the House now to decide which, that it may be progressing towards a final decision.
The resolution states a general principle. If it is the fixed determination of the majority, without an inquiry, not to grant any relief whatever, there is an end of the business. But if you agree to grant any relief, the resolution ought to be adopted. The principle is then established of indemnifying; after which you may discriminate.
The principle on which the resolution is founded is not that Government has declined to insist upon the claims of its citizens against the French; but that it has undertaken to abandon their claims, so that no citizen can now come forward with his claim either against the French Government or any citizen of France. For this is the construction of the treaty as finally ratified by the Government. It is a complete surrender and renunciation of all demands. Among the first claims of our citizens are some of private right, which were it not for the treaty, could be recovered in the courts of France, but which the treaty bars. This constitutes a class of claims which the Government cannot refuse to indemnify. There are other descriptions of claims which might require discrimination; in some of which the degree of compensation should be varied, and others in which there should be no compensation whatever. I think, therefore, it is proper for the Government to say the business shall be attended to; at some future time an inquiry may be made into the nature of the various claims. This is all we ask.
Mr. Griswold said that the gentleman from New York had misapprehended the order of proceeding in that House. He supposes the present resolution so vaguely worded as to be improper to be passed. But, if taken up, that very gentleman may offer any amendment he pleases. I do, however, apprehend that it is so worded as to bring the subject fairly before the House. It is worded even with caution. Its sole object is to bring the principle of indemnity before the House, unfettered, that its decision might not be embarrassed by any details; supposing there would be an indisposition in the House to pledge the nation to an unlimited extent, the words used are, "towards indemnifying." Gentlemen, therefore, who are disposed to do any thing, can feel no objection to a resolution so qualified. Other parts of the resolution are worded with equal caution, so as to extend only to cases where losses are renounced by treaty. Are gentlemen unwilling to indemnify for such losses?
This is a principle proper for decision in Committee of the Whole. Why take it to a select committee? It involves no details; it requires the elucidation of no facts. We know the losses of our merchants, and we know the treaty has renounced them. The House is, therefore, prepared to say whether it will or will not indemnify. When the principle is decided, it may be sent to a select committee to settle the details. I hope that it will be taken up, and an early day fixed for consideration.
The gentleman says the committee are progressing. It may be so. Though I observe the gentleman from South Carolina says the committee has not yet met. How progressing? Without meeting? I do not understand this new mode, though I will not say that it is not a very correct mode. The gentleman further says the committee have not progressed because they wished to have first all the petitions before them; but the principle to be settled is as much involved in one petition as in all.
Mr. Gregg said he should not have risen but for the remarks of the gentleman from South Carolina, and after him those of the gentleman from Connecticut, who had stated that the committee had not met. Being a member of the committee he would inform those gentlemen that the committee had met; that they had perused a number of the papers, and had determined that it was improper to proceed until they had received documents that would show the extent of the claims.
As the business now stands, we find it referred to a select committee, instructed to examine the papers, and report their opinion thereupon. This report will form the grounds of decision for the House. Now the gentleman would wrest the business from the committee, and urge the House into a decision without any of the necessary information. The attempt was unprecedented. Mr. G. said he never knew a similar instance where the select committee had not been previously discharged.
Mr. Lowndes rose to explain. He said that when he informed the House that the committee had never been called together, he had been induced to say so, from never having been himself notified, though a member of the committee.
Mr. Bayard thought the motion ought to prevail for the reason assigned by the honorable gentleman from Connecticut. He has properly remarked that we are not now called on to decide the abstract question, but only to say what course of proceeding shall be pursued. The point ought now to be decided whether the business shall be sent to a select committee, or to a Committee of the Whole. The gentleman from Pennsylvania says it is altogether unprecedented to take a subject out of the hands of a select committee. But this will not be the effect of the resolution; which will only facilitate the business before the committee, and shed additional light on the path they ought to pursue. We do not wish to interfere with the operations of the committee, but to decide a question that will greatly facilitate their proceedings, and which question ought to be settled in a Committee of the Whole. It is peculiarly and strikingly proper to postpone the question of repealing the internal taxes until a decision shall have been made on these claims. Not that we are anxious to decide upon them immediately, but because we are solicitous not to prejudge all claims to indemnity by repealing the very taxes on which the indemnity must depend. Do gentlemen mean to decide at once thus precipitately against all indemnity whatever? If they are not in favor of so deciding, surely they will not be for immediately deciding on the internal taxes.
Let the gentleman from New York classify the claims as he pleases, can he tell the extent of the demands? May they not amount to five million or ten million of dollars? And if to either sum, can we with propriety dispense with the internal taxes? It appears from the report of the Secretary of the Treasury that the whole of the revenue for the year 1803 and 1804 will be wanted. If, then, these claims shall be allowed, and shall produce an increase of the public debt, the fund derived from the internal revenue will be required.
It is cruel to decide at once against the claims of our merchants. If it is predetermined not to give them relief, at least allow them the consolation of a hearing. Whoever votes for now taking up the question of the repeal of the internal taxes, votes, not only against indemnifying, but also against hearing the merchants; because he votes away all means of indemnification. It is hard, peculiarly hard, that at the moment when you are about to throw the whole burdens of the Government upon the merchants, you should deny them a hearing, an impartial hearing, of their claims. Suppose there should be a combination of these men, seeing the Government act towards them with such flagrant injustice, to refuse all importations. I ask, if you do not, by such treatment, put the Government entirely into their hands?
If gentlemen will agree to postpone the question of internal taxes, we will agree to postpone this question, if they are not prepared to decide upon it. The subject of the internal taxes is the least pressing of all the subjects before the House. The bill, indeed, ought not to pass until we know the appropriations that are necessary to be made for the present year. Have gentlemen shown, can they show, that with propriety these taxes can be dispensed with from any retrenchments that can be made in our expenditures? I do not know any official document on this point, except that of the Secretary of War, who, in his very correct report, says there will be a saving in his department of a little more or less than $500,000; which report I confess I do not understand. The Committee of Ways and Means say there will be a retrenchment in the War Department of a sum not exceeding $400,000; which mode of expression I do not precisely comprehend. Surely we ought to know with precision the sums that will be required for the objects of the Government before we abandon our resources.
Mr. Eustis thought the object of indemnity to our merchants very important both in its nature and its consequences. And, first, as to its amount, it was known to be great. The consequence of these applications will be a hearing, and procedure thereon. And the amount of the claims, as well as the nature of them, ought to have great influence on the deliberations of the House. And yet we talk of deciding the abstract question, when the very facts on which we are to decide are not before us. For it will be perceived by the public prints that the claims of the merchants of the State of Massachusetts are not yet brought forward. The necessary evidence is not before the House. I appeal to the gentlemen to know how we are to act, understandingly, if the subject be taken up now. What is the abstract question? Will gentlemen say they will pay all demands before they know any thing of their nature or amount?
The claims of our merchants are very serious, and merit great consideration. But the revenue, which gentlemen are so anxious to retain, to them will be but as the light dust in the balance. I presume that the losses of the merchants of Massachusetts alone are not less than five to ten millions of dollars. But to act understandingly upon them we must have evidence as well of their amount as their nature, both of which we at present want.
Mr. Rutledge.—I am sorry the resolution of my honorable friend from Connecticut is not acceptable to the gentleman from New York. It is not the least indelicate to that committee. On the contrary, were I a member of that committee, I should feel infinitely gratified by it. I would ask solicitously, whether it were possible that Congress would agree to this principle before the details were gone into. We are now for giving that information to the committee.
The honorable gentleman says this resolution conveys no light. But I will say, that, if adopted, it will confer not only light, but comfort to our merchants. It will foster their hopes, and animate them to meet the difficulties under which they are staggering.
The gentleman from Massachusetts says there is no evidence of fact. What fact? Surely he will not say there is no evidence of the French having condemned our vessels, and of their having committed vast spoliation. If this were so, how happens it that an American embassy had demanded compensation; and that, on the ulterior negotiations of the Government, the Government had said we will abandon it, that we may release ourselves from guaranteeing to France her colonial possessions. Had this not been so, France might have called upon us to guarantee her West India possessions, and to supply her with men and money. From this situation we have been kept by those negotiations which terminated in an abandonment of the just Claims of your merchants on the French Government or her citizens. And this constitutes your good bargains.
If these are facts, we possess sufficient evidence not only to justify, but to compel our paying the merchants, if under the influence of common honesty. The amount is perfectly immaterial. Whatever it is we must pay it. It is true that of the millions claimed, Government may not in law or equity be compelled to pay more than a small part. But if you establish the principle that there shall be an indemnity made, you enable your committee to devise the mode of collecting evidences of and settling the validity of the claims.
But the gentleman from Massachusetts says these taxes, right or wrong, must be repealed. For, he says, the public expectation has already decided the question; and that, indeed, the public officers could not now collect them. But I hope, for the honor of the Government, and of the American people, this opinion is not correct.
Mr. Mitchill begged to be indulged in making a few observations on what had fallen from the gentleman from South Carolina. I do not know that these observations will satisfy his mind, but they will at least serve to justify my own character as a Representative of a portion of the Union respectable for its mercantile opulence. I believe the subject of indemnities, in the contemplation of gentlemen, has swelled much beyond its real magnitude. I believe that a large portion of losses were so covered by insurance that Government will not be obliged to pay for them. I feel as sincerely for the merchants as any gentleman; yet I do not wish to swell the subject to an improper magnitude. Suppose, as the gentlemen wish, we say we will indemnify, does that pay the claims?
Besides, it is not so evident, as some gentlemen assert, that our merchants have been deprived of valuable rights by the mode in which the French Convention has been ratified. Let gentlemen recollect the mass of depredations committed by Great Britain, and the engagements, under treaty, of the British Government to make reparation for them. Yet, notwithstanding this engagement, reparation has been to this day evaded, under the pretext that the claims under one article depend on the construction given to a preceding article. Now, suppose in the French Treaty there were the same provisions as in the British Treaty, would this have produced payment? No. The operations under the treaty might have gone on as long as under the British Treaty, with the like effect, and without any substantial provision being made. I state these circumstances barely to show that the renunciation in the French Treaty is not so grievous as some gentlemen imagine.
It is manifest that an inattention to similar claims has been considered as less a departure from right among nations than among individuals. And, judging of the future by the past, my opinion is that a retention of the article stricken out of the French Convention, would not have benefited the claims of our merchants, or afforded them any adequate eventual compensation. In France, as on the other side of the Channel, there would have been claim raised against claim, pretext against pretext, and the boards for adjusting the several claims might have been, in this case, as in the other, dissolved.
It is said by the gentleman from Delaware, that it is the object of gentlemen on his side of the House to prevent a repeal of the internal taxes. Though I admire the gentleman's candor, I believe it is needful to repeal these laws. I believe, too, the people wish them repealed. But I further believe, that if future events shall show the necessity of restoring these taxes, the good sense of the people will restore them; and if the indemnities agreed to be made shall require them, I believe they will be restored. The work of examining these claims will be the work of years. What is the consequence? Will the present repeal of the internal taxes interfere with the doing substantial justice to our merchants? Suppose these taxes are removed, are not the products of the country increasing? and are not our resources increasing with our population? The truth is, whenever your Treasury wants a fresh supply of resources, the people will submit to what their Representatives desire. Are we to legislate for succeeding ages? No. We are to suffer our successors to act for themselves; and I have no doubt either of their ability or their inclination to do justice.
Mr. Dana.—If I understood the honorable member from New York, he admitted the propriety of making some indemnity; and if so, I could not understand why he dwelt so elaborately upon the minutiæ of detail, to show why we ought not to indemnify. Nor can I yet understand him, unless his object be to let the subject sleep, and to say that the longer it is delayed, the less chance of reparation.
The gentleman says, property insured cannot be recovered. But is that gentleman, coming as he does from the first commercial city in the Union, yet to learn that, in the case of loss, the insurer stands precisely in the place of the insured? Is he so ignorant of this fact as not to know that the underwriter, in such circumstances, becomes entitled to the same indemnity with him who is underwritten?
With regard to the analogy attempted between the British Treaty and the French Convention, it is totally incorrect. For, in the British Treaty, we had insisted upon the claims of our merchants to reparation by Britain, or her subjects; whereas, in the French Convention, we had renounced all claim. Nor were the remarks of the honorable member more fortunate respecting the operations under the British Treaty; for he must know that our merchants have, in many cases, received compensation under it.
One concession has been made which I did not expect would be avowed so early, either by the gentleman from Massachusetts or the gentleman from New York; a confession that is founded on the principle that the House, before examining the important details which ought to regulate their decision, are so placed by the head of the Executive ministry, that certain taxes, recommended to be abrogated, must be repealed. You must repeal them. The public clamor is excited, and you must obey it. I did not suppose it would so soon have been avowed that we are under the absolute rule of Executive influence, and that, to obey it, we are compelled to perjure our understandings.
Mr. Bayard.—The honorable gentleman from Massachusetts has thanked me for the candor of my avowal that I am opposed to the repeal of these taxes. But I do not wish to be thanked for more than I really said. It is true, that I do not think this the proper time to repeal all of those taxes, because I do not know that Government may not want them.
The gentleman from Massachusetts has broached a new species of ethics. He says, if the amount of claims shall be small, we may pay, but if large we cannot. But I will tell that gentleman I have never acknowledged such a principle of morality. I believe if the merchants have a just demand for one dollar, we must pay it; and if they have a just demand for one hundred millions, we must pay that too. Nor can I too forcibly express my astonishment at an opposite principle avowed by this House.
The gentleman says you want evidence, and therefore ought not to act. But can you examine each distinct case? If the subject goes to a select committee, and they shall be allowed years to decide, still they will have to establish some principle; for instance, that a certain description of vessels was captured unjustly by the French; that the injured merchants had a moral claim on the French Government for reparation; that the United States had bartered away their rights, and that Government, in consequence, is bound to indemnify. If the House decide that the Government is bound to relieve in one case, are they not bound to afford relief in all similar cases? Will you not, then, be obliged to make a general provision that all claims, so circumstanced, shall be allowed? Here is a great mass of claims; some made now, and some not likely to be made for years. What more, then, can you do, than decide the principle which shall be applied to them?
My opinion as to indemnity is, that whoever had a valid claim against the French Government, which the United States extinguished, has a demand against the United States, which she must satisfy. Put the case to its consequence: Will gentlemen tell me whether, according to any principle of morality, where you have taken from your citizens all chance of recovery, you are not bound to indemnify for that of which you have deprived them? Where the French Government was not bound to pay before the convention, you are not now bound to pay. So, in the case of war, you are not bound. But where the claim on the French Government was perfect, and you destroyed that claim, your obligation to pay cannot be evaded. I wish to know if the establishment of this principle requires facts?
With respect to the circumstances of particular cases, this House cannot act. On those numerous grades of credibility that will be attached to the various claims that shall be made, you cannot decide. To effect this you must establish some competent tribunal. You can establish the principle; but the details could not be settled by Congress, even if their attention were exclusively directed to that subject, in three years. Having decided the principle, it will be proper to leave the application of it to your courts of law.
Mr. Bacon hoped that a great deal of time would not be spent in exploring the secret motives of individual members. He supposed they should all stand or fall on their own consciences. He hoped, therefore, they should have the question.
Mr. S. Smith.—I am against the proposition of the gentleman from Connecticut, because to act now upon it will be in direct opposition to the uniform order of the House. If our attention is thus to be withdrawn from every important object before us, I do not know how we are possibly to progress with the public business. I know of no case, where a particular subject has been referred to a select committee, and it has afterward been taken up in the House, while it remained with the committee. I should have understood the motion, if it had been to discharge the select committee, and to refer the subject to a Committee of the Whole.
As gentlemen, however, have taken so wide a range in the field of debate, I hope their course will produce a saving of time, and that we shall not have their speeches over again on repealing the internal taxes.
It is not my purpose, at this time, to enter into a discussion of the claims of our merchants, because I think this is not the proper occasion. But I will tell gentlemen, that if they were disposed to destroy those claims, they could not have pursued a plan more effectually calculated to do it. Had such been my intention, I would have offered a resolution so broad and vague as to alarm the whole community as to the amount of indemnity. I would have endeavored to throw the censure attached to their losses on the present Administration. I would have opposed their claims to the wish of the nation to repeal the internal taxes. All these steps I would have taken to frustrate any indemnity; and they are just the steps taken by gentlemen who profess so strong a regard for the merchants. Let me tell those gentlemen until they shall pursue a far different plan, we must doubt whether they are in earnest to pay the merchants for their losses.
If the public business is to be thus perpetually procrastinated, I hope the gentlemen with whom I act will be firm enough, after rejecting this motion, to pursue the other business even to a late hour.
The yeas and nays were then taken on Mr. Griswold's motion, to postpone taking up the bill on internal taxes till to-morrow, in order to take up his resolution on French spoliations; and decided in the negative—yeas 33, nays 54.