first seven years after the close of the war than it has been for any subsequent seven years. Will, then, Mr. Chairman, any gentleman hesitate a moment to pronounce the rule of apportionment which was adopted unjust, unequal, and erroneous? Will any gentleman say, sir, that the rule of apportionment was a just one, or as just as the nature of the case would admit of, which brought the State of New York in debt upwards of two millions-two-thirds of the whole amount of the balances-when, on the principles of righteousness, on the principles of legal contract, or any other principles, but an unauthorized act of Congress, that State would have been a creditor State for nearly a million? Mr. Chairman, I admit, as the settlement has been made, and the creditor States have received their balances, that it would be improper now to take up this subject de novo, and endeavor to compel those States to refund what they have received more than they were entitled to; this is not expected-it is not asked; all that is asked of you is, that you render such justice to those injured States as the present situation of this transaction will admit of; this is all that is contemplated in the bill now before us. H. OF R. ing any part of them, or by complying with any of the terms heretofore offered by Congress; and as it must be admitted on all hands that Congress have no power to effect it by eviction, I ask gentlemen if it would be just or reasonable that the State of New York, who has been injured more in the settlement than any other State in the Union; who has already paid upwards of $220,000 towards these balances, and who is the only State that has, or in all probability ever will, pay a cent towards them-I say, I ask gentlemen of the Committee whether it would be just that that State should now be driven to one of two alternatives; either to draw near a million of dollars from her citizens and expend it where it will answer no useful purpose to the State nor to the nation, or to withhold any further appropriations, and thereby incur the imputation of having violated her faith? I call upon gentlemen seriously to consider whether it would not be prodigiously unjust to hold that State in this predicament; whether it would not be adding injury to injustice to do it? Mr. Chairman, I do flatter myself that the representatives of this nation, convened here to legislate on fair and equitable principles, will not suffer a new wound to be inflicted on that State, but that they will unite with one accord in passing the bill now before us, and thereby not only heal the one already made on that, as well as several of her sister States, but remove a rock which may endanger our Federal ship. The bill was supported by Messrs. RANDOLPH, Sir, as to the present situation of the State of New York with respect to this subject, she has not acknowledged the justice of this claim, as was stated by some gentlemen when this question was under consideration the other day; she has uniformly denied it. It is true she did comply with the act of Congress passed in February, 1799, and has expended and been credited on the books of your Treasury for $223,810 under that act; she did this, not from a conviction of the justice of the claim, but from motives which have always actuated her conduct, as well during the Revolutionary war as since, to do everything in her pow-rising, and reporting the bill without amendment, er for the general welfare of the nation, whenever its exigencies required it, and also from an expectation that the other States called debtor States would do the same, and thereby get rid of an evil which she considers as having a tendency to alienate the good will and cordial affection so necessary to be cherished between these Statesa cause, sir, which has and will, while it is suffered to exist, occasion perpetual irritation and disquiet, as well to the creditor as to the debtor States, and which may at some future period produce consequences more fatal. I say, sir, these were her motives in agreeing to that measure; and did she not evince a magnanimous spirit by doing it? A willingness to suffer an additional injury herself, rather than not remove a cause which might put in jeopardy the peace and harmony of these United States? But, Mr. Chairman, as it can answer no useful purpose to have the remainder of the money expended in the manner directed by the act-and this I am warranted in stating to the Committee, not only as my own opinion, but as the opinion of the gentleman who was employed under Government as an agent or commissioner to superintend the expenditure already made-as no other State has evinced a disposition to extinguish these balances by pay and carried-yeas 47, nays 33. A motion was then made that the bill be engrossed for a third reading on Tuesday, and carried-yeas 47, nays 35. A motion was then made by Mr. LEIB to recommit the report of the select committee on which the above bill was founded, in order to correct an erroneous statement in relation to Pennsylvania. SATURDAY, March 13. The House met, but no quorum being present, adjourned till Monday. or any of them; and that they report by bill, or otherwise. Mr. THOMAS, from the committee to whom was re-committed, on the twefth instant, a report of the same committee, appointed "to inquire into the expediency of extinguishing the claims of the United States for certain balances, which by the Commissioners appointed to settle the accounts between the United States and the individual States, were reported to be due from several of the States to the United States," made a report thereon; which was read, and ordered to lie on the table. Mr. RANDOLPH called for the order of the day on the bill for repealing the internal taxes. 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 meantime, 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 MARCH. I decision scarcely possible-the select commitee may be discharged. If, on the other hand, t thought proper to compensate, the committee may go into the investigation of details. The order of the day is called for on repealing the internal taxes. But ought not the House: understand the amount with which the Gove ment will stand charged on these indemnita before those taxes are repealed? Mr. L. said he was of opinion the claims could not be rejected They were too just to be disregarded. It wa the duty of the Government to protect its citize from the depredations of an enemy. Governmeal. for a certain national good, had thought proper abandon the claims of its citizens on the French Government. Surely no man would say, the Government possessed the right to seize the pr erty of a certain description of its citizens. appropriate it to general purposes. He repeated that these claims must be paid by the Gover ment. Was it not then proper to determine ther extent before the internal taxes were taken of? Mr. JOHN C. SMITH Submitted it to the canta of the gentleman from Virginia to waive his tion until that made by the gentleman from C necticut, respecting French spoliations, should se referred to a Committee of the Whole. Mr. MITCHILL felt it an obligation, that the case of those whom he had the honor to repe sent, and that of the other merchants in the Cur ted States, should be taken up and receive tra this House the most deliberate and serious co sideration. He had before submitted to the Hoe his ideas on the proper course to be pursued, wh it was not necessary for him to repeat. Hi would, however, observe, that the resolution made was so broad as entirely to defeat its c ject. The first reference of this business was t a select committee instructed to examine ali te papers and documents in relation to it, with 22 instruction to report their opinion to the House on receiving which the House might be able come to a decision. On the other hand, the p sent proposition goes to commit the House on the whole extent of the subject without any exanation whatever. Mr. M. said, he would suggest a few reasons which satisfied his mind that a decision shoc not be too rapidly pressed. The vessels takea✨ the French admitted of various classificaties One class consisted of those that were capture before the dissolution of our treaty with France another class of those which were captured af that event; another class of those that were cap tured by picaroons without commissions; a another class, where captures were made on a count of contraband goods. All these classes 2 volved distinct considerations; and when the s ject was presented to the House in a for complicated, was it proper precipitately to det a principle that might bind the Governmeti make indemnity for all cases whatever? Mr. M. said he had no doubt but that se property of the citizens of the United States came fairly under the character of spoliated pr erty, would be considered as a fit subject of is demnity. 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. H. OF R. 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 anything, 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. 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 The gentleman says the committee are proto decide which, that it may be progressing to-gressing. It may be so. Though I observe the wards a final decision. gentleman from South Carolina says the commitThe resolution states a general principle. If it tee has not yet met. How progressing? Withis the fixed determination of the majority, without meeting? I do not understand this new mode, out 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 my discriminate. though I will not say that it is not a very correct mode. The gentlemen 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. 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. The principle on which the resolution is founded is not that Government has declined to insist upon Mr. GREGG said he should not have risen but the claims of its citizens against the French; but for the remarks of the gentleman from South that it has undertaken to abandon their claims, Carolina, and after him those of the gentleman so that no citizen can now come forward with from Connecticut, who had stated that the comhis claim either against the French Government mittee had not met. Being a member of the comor any citizen of France. For this is the con-mittee he would inform those gentlemen that the struction 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 re- As the business now stands, we find it referred covered in the courts of France, but which the to a select committee, instructed to examine the treaty bars. This constitutes a class of claims papers, and report their opinion thereupon. This which the Government cannot refuse to indem-report will form the grounds of decision for the nify. 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 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 re. marked 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 pre judge 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. MARCH, 1802. tion 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 pass until we know the appropriations that are necessary to be made for the preseat 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 anything of their nature or amount? The gentleman from Delaware had stated fairly that this is a question whether the internal taxes shall be repealed or not. I know the internal taxes must be repealed. I consider the conversations and proceedings which have already taken It is cruel to decide at once against the claims place here and elsewhere as having shaken that of our merchants. If it is predetermined not to revenue to its centre; as having placed it in such give them relief, at least allow them the consola- a situation as to prevent your officers from being tion of a hearing. Whoever votes for now taking able to collect it-its collection being peculiarly up the question of the repeal of the internal taxes, dependent upon the good faith of the community. votes, not only against indemnifying, but also My own opinion was, that the repeal of these against hearing the merchants; because he votes taxes should have been the last act of the session; away all means of indemnification. It is hard, but a different aspect has been given to the subpeculiarly hard, that at the moment when you ject; the people expect the taxes to be immediare about to throw the whole burdens of the Gov-ately taken off; and I therefore think it best to ernment upon the merchants, you should deuy 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 ques pass the bill at an early day. 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 pre sent 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 guarantying to France her colonial possessions. Had this not been so, France might have called upon us to guaranty 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. The gentleman from Massachusetts has observed that my honorable friend from Delaware has boldly avowed his object to be to refuse to repeal the internal taxes. We do avow it. For if we once repeal them, then we shall be told there is no money where with to pay these claims however just. Before we repeal these taxes we ought clearly to understand the state of our Naval Establishment. We ought to see whether it is to be fostered or starved. I perceive that the Naval Committee call for $160,000; but where is it to come from? 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 H. of R. American people, this opinion is not correct. I hope the Government has still energy enough to collect, and the people honesty enough to pay them, without resistance. In certain sections of the Union the payment has been resisted. But those who opposed were compelled to pay the tax. It is possible that in some quarters there may be further resistance. But it will be partial. The people generally will pay; and I am sorry any contrary suggestion has been made. I hope, too, the people will not be led astray either by Executive communications or conversations. 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. Istate 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 gentleman on his side of the House to prevent a repeal of the internal taxes. Though I admire the gentleman's candor, I be |