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decision, are so placed by the head of the Executive ministry, that certain taxes, recommended to be abrogated, must be repealed.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.