the government responsible to its citizens for any act of its officers in the conduct of a national affair, which compromised their rights, and that no such act can be binding on the government. Why, sirs, do we not see the government daily holding its citizens responsible for their acts, and are we, in this free and enlightened Republic, to be told, in the language of tyranny and oppression, that "the king can do no wrong!" that there is no responsibility resting on this government towards its citizens? Such a doctrine strikes at the very sub-stratum of the compact on which the confederacy of this Union was formed. We know, that, in forming the confederacy, each State gave up a portion of its rights and sovereignty to the general government, in consideration of its obligation and responsibility to protect, maintain, secure, and defend the rights of its citizens. I find, sirs, in the proceedings of the Congress of the Confederation, an address to the several States, prepared by Mr. Madison, Mr. Ellsworth, and Mr. Hamilton, adopted 26th April, 1783, holding this language:

Let it be remembered, finally, that it has ever been the pride and the boast of America that the rights for which she contended were the rights of human nature. By the blessings of the author of these rights on the means exerted for their defence, they have prevailed against all opposition, and form the basis of thirteen independent States. No instance has heretofore occurred, nor can any instance be expected hereafter to occur, in which the unadulterated forms of republican government can pretend to so fair an opportunity of justifying themselves by their fruits. In this view, the citizens of the United States are responsible for the greatest trust ever confided to a political society. If justice, good faith, honor, gratitude, and all the other qualities which ennoble the character of a nation, and fulfill the ends of government, be the fruits of our establishments, the cause of liberty will acquire a dignity and lustre which it has never yet enjoyed, and an example will be set which cannot but have the most favorable influence on the rights of mankind. If, on the other side, our government shall be unfortunately blotted with the reverse of

these cardinal and essential virtues, the great cause which we have engaged to vindicate will be dishonored and betrayed, the last and fairest experiment in favor of the rights of human nature will be turned against them, and their patrons and friends exposed to be insulted and silenced by the votaries of tyranny and usurpation." What a commentary is this upon the act of the government in denying to the claimants the rights of human nature? I appeal to this honorable court, and ask, whether "justice, good faith, honor, gratitude, and all the other qualities which ennoble the character of a nation," do not demand that the claimants should be indemnified by their government? But if there be no responsibility in this case, upon what principle, then, is the forced construction of an act of a citizen, construed into an acquiescence and a responsibility to release this government? The illustrious General Washington said, in his farewell address, "It is indeed little else than a name, where the government is too feeble to withstand the enterprises of faction, to confine each member of the society within the limits prescribed by the laws, and to maintain all in the secure and tranquil enjoyment of the rights of persons and property." What a shadow, what a thing of air becomes this government, then, when all these cardinal and essential virtues become reversed, exposing the claimants to be insulted and silenced by the votaries of tyranny and usurpation,!

Sirs, under the Constitution, Congress alone has the power to declare war, and make rules concerning captures on land and water. We have made our own code of the law of nations in this regard— and what is the doctrine as laid down by General Washington? In the case of the British ship Grangé, captured by the French frigate L'Ambuscadé, within the capes of the Delaware, in 1793, the President then said: "Rather than employ force for the restoration of certain vessels which I deem the United States bound to restore, I thought it more advisable to satisfy the parties by avowing it to be my opinion that, if restitution was not made, it would be incumbent on the United States to make compensation." It will not be denied, but that this decree of Louis Napoleon is cruelly disgraceful

and unjust. And what is its effect? The government of the United States is placed in the mortifying and humiliating position of having prosecuted and supported by its honor an unjust claim for thirty-five years, founded only on falsehood. This it is made to acknowledge by receding from the high ground it had taken, and consenting to submit the honor of the country and the rights of the claimants to arbitration. It stamps Captain Reid and his officers, and Mr. Dabney, the consul, as convicted perjurers, and elevates an act of infamy on the part of England to the purity of truth. And yet it is said, this decree is final, and the record must stand!

Sirs, was this case submitted to the people of this Union to-day, their unanimous voices would denounce this decree, and declare justice to the claimants. In this spirit I ask you to refer to the very preamble of the Constitution, which in itself constitutes an appeal to your equity, and covers the history of this case. That preamble guarantees and secures justice, that justice which we seek. That preamble embodies and contains the very essence of the Constitution of the United States, "ESTABLISH JUSTICE," not law, which is but a poor substitute. To insure domestic tranquillity, and in providing for it the common defence, thereby promoting the general welfare, and securing the blessings of liberty to those who perilled their lives to establish it-not for themselves, but for posterity, we ask JUSTICE at your hands.

May it please this honorable court, my task is done. You have before you the full history of a case, wherein the claimants have been for nearly half a century gradually sinking under wrong and injustice, until life's hope expiring, many of them have died with it unrequited bat by the grave. It was not considered by them, whether they spilt one drop of blood, or their whole heart's blood, in defending the honor of their country, and should it now be considered by this honorable court, whether a precedent can be found to guide you, while you have the Constitution and the eternal truth to sustain you in decreeing JUSTICE?

And I now submit this cause, leaving it to this honorable court to determine whether the stain of infamy shall be obliterated, the honor of our countrymen maintained, and the truth of history vindicated, or whether the damning and atrocious record of the decree of Louis Napoleon shall remain in the archives of the national State Department, as the only monument, erected by this government, in gratitude and commemoration of the act of this heroic Spartan band.

REPORT OF THE SPEECH OF P. PHILLIPS, ESQ.

COUNSEL FOR CLAIMANTS, IN THE CASE OF THE PRIVATEER BRIG GENERAL COURT OF CLAIMS, 28TH AND 29TH NOV., 1855.

ARMSTRONG.

May it please your Honors

After the lengthened narration of the facts and diplomatic correspondence connected with this case, to which your attention has already been called, I feel that I should make some apology for consuming still more of your time in a further investigation of the point, that the neutrality of the port of Fayal was invaded by the British fleet, under Commodore Lloyd, and that the conduct of Captain Reid, commanding the privateer General Armstrong, was not only distinguished by the highest gallantry, but justified on the principle of self-defence. The interest of this question cannot be over-estimated, whether we regard it as determining the character of what our people have heretofore considered one of the brightest pictures of the last war, or affecting the right of the claimants, as now presented to your Honors. My apology, if one be needed, must be rested upon these considerations.

The testimony shows that the transaction occurred between eight and nine o'clock at night; the brightness of the moon enabling all its incidents to be observed by the citizens of Fayal and a number of strangers, who lined the shores of that beautiful bay. [Dabney's and Captain Reid's letters.]

In the protest, drawn up on the day the transaction terminated, 27th September, 1814, it is stated that, during the afternoon of the