33D CONG....2d Sess.

of union between the sovereign and the people; still less can they absolve or free the subjects from their oath of allegiance.

Proceeding to the third question, the said faculty of Divinity (in perfect wonder that such a question should be proposed to her) most positively and unequivocally answers: That there is not, and there never has been, among the Catholics, or in the doctrines of the Church of Rome, any law or principle which makes it lawful for Catholics to break their faith with heretics, or others of a different persuasion from themselves, in matters of religion, either in public or private

To the first question, it is answered: That none of the persons mentioned in the proposed question, either individually or collectively, in counsel assembled, bave any right in civil matters; but that all civil power, jurisdiction, and preeminence, are derived from inheritance, election, the consent of the people, and other such titles of that nature. To the second, it is answered in like manner: That none of the persons above mentioned have a power to absolve the subjects of his Britannic Majesty from their oaths of allegiance.

To the third question, it is answered: That the doctrine which would exempt Catholics from the obligation of keeping faith with heretics, or with any other persons who dissent from them in matters of religion, instead of being an article of Catholic faith, is entirely repugnant to its

tenets.

Signed in the usual form, March 17, 1789.

UNIVERSITY OF SALAMANCA.

To the first question, it is answered: That neither Pope nor Cardinals, nor any assembly or individual of the Catholic Church, have, as such, any civil authority, power, jurisdiction, or preeminence in the kingdom of England.

To the second, it is answered: That neither Pope nor Cardinals, nor any assembly or individual of the Catholic Church, can, as such, absolve the subjects of Great Britain from their oaths of allegiance, or dispense with its obligations.

To the third, it is answered: That it is no article of Catholic faith, not to keep faith with heretics, or with persons of any other description, who dissent from them in matters of religion.

Signed in the usual form, March 7, 1789.

UNIVERSITY OF VALADOLID.

To the first question, it is answered: That neither Pope, Cardinals, or even a general council, have any civil authority, power, jurisdiction, or preeminence, directly or indirectly, in the kingdom of Great Britain, or over any other kingdom or province in which they possess no temporal dominion.

To the second, it is answered: That neither Pope nor Cardinals, nor even a general council, can absolve the subjects of Great Britain from their oaths of allegiance or dispense with their obligation.

To the third, it is answered: That the obligation of keeping faith is grounded on the law of nature, which binds all men equally, without respect to their religious opinions; and with regard to Catholics, it is still more cogent, as it is confirmed by the principles of their religion. Signed in the usual form, February 17, 1789.

Can any thing be more explicit than the responses of those Universities? Ought they not to be satisfactory? I, perhaps, ought to rest here. Layman, Priest, Bishop, Cardinal, and faculty of Divinity sustain my assertion, give a negative response to every query that involved an implication upon the patriotism of Catholics, or an 'inadmissible claim to intervention in national policy by the Catholic Church.

So entirely satisfied was the British Parliament with these and similar responses, that the different concessions made to Roman Catholics by that body are mainly due to such testimony.

And, let it be remembered, that this was in Great Britain, in a British Parliament, where the members were of the established church, and also that, without special permission, no man in that Empire had a right to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and none, not acknowledging in the monarch of England (man or woman, King or Queen) both temporal and spiritual sovereignty, could hold an office under Government, or sit in the Parliament of the nation.

proof as I have adduced. He admits my fealty to the country, but denies my adherence to the Roman Catholic Church. He admits that France and Spain have disclaimed the doctrine against which he speaks, and which he imputes to the Roman Catholic Church. France and Spain, the titles of whose monarchs are most Christian and most Catholic! The honorable gentleman surely cannot be ignorant that such Universities-great theological colleges as those, are repositories of records of faith, and of the arguments and decisions concerning them. But let us hear the honorable gentle

man:

"Mr. BANKS. I plant myself upon the ground that the Pontiff of Rome has never, in any authoritative form, so disavowed the right to control the members of the Roman Catholic Church in secular matters. I know the universities of France and Spain have disclaimed that power. The gentleman says that his Catholic friends have disclaimed it to him. So my Catholic friends have disclaimed it to me. But they have not the right to private opinion, much less the right to determine the faith of their church. That is the right of Protestants. The Roman Church has never disclaimed it."

I pass over the slur about private judgment; it is undeserved and might be retaliated. The honorable gentleman then suspecting that Laymen, Priests, and Bishops, would declare that the church had no such articles of faith as he imputes, and being informed of the existence of those responses of the French and Spanish Universities, throws himself upon the Pope. "I plant myself," says he, "on the ground that the Pontiff of Rome has never, in any authoritative form, so disavowed the right to control the members of the Roman Catholic Church in secular affairs." Very well. Let He plants himself on what he calls a fact. us see how he is sustained. Let us proceed up from Layman to Priest, from Priest to Bishop, from Bishop to Archbishop, from Archbishop to Universities. These are all against the honorable gentleman, and, accepting the invitation or challenge of the gentleman from Massachusetts, let us plant ourselves upon the Pope himself, the Pope and his conclave of Cardinals.

Mr. Chairman, the same circumstances which induced that great statesman, Mr. Pitt, to address the six Catholic Universities, led the Roman Catholic Archbishops of Ireland to address the Pope himself on the subject, and the answer was as clear and explicit as those of the Universities. Solemn deliberation was given in the congregation of Cardinals, and the response was made in the most formal manner, as declaring the doctrine of the Catholic Church on the subject involved in the questions. I copy from an authentic report:

"The Roman Catholic Archbishops of Ireland, at their meeting in Dublin, in 1791, addressed a letter to the Pope, wherein they described the misrepresentations that had been recently published of their consecration oath, and the great injury to the Catholic body arising from them. *

"After due deliberation at Rome, the congregation of Cardinals appointed to superintend the ecclesiastical affairs of these kingdoms, returned an answer (of which the following is an extract) by the authority and command of his holiness:

"Most Illustrious and most Reverend Lords and Brothers: "We perceive from your late letter, the great uneasiness you labor under since the publication of a pamphlet entiled The present State of the Church of Ireland, from which our detractors have taken occasion to renew the old calumny against the Catholic religion with increased acrimony; namely: that this religion is, by no means, compatible with the safety of Kings and Republics; because, as they say, the Roman Pontiff being the father and master of all Catholics, and invested with such great authority, that he can

free the subjects of other kingdoms from their fidelity and oaths of allegiance to Kings and Princes; he has it in his power, they contend, to cause disturbances and injure the public tranquillity of kingdoms, with ease. We wonder that you could be uneasy at these complaints, especially after your most excellent brother and apostolical fellowlaborer, the Archbishop of Cashel, and other strenuous defenders of the rights of the Holy See, had evidently refuted and explained away these slanderous reproaches in their celebrated writings. In this controversy, a most accurate discrimination should be made between the genuine rights of the Apostolical See, and those that are imputed to it by innovators of this age for the purpose of calumniating. The See of Rome never taught that faith is not to be kept with the heterodox: that an oath to Kings separated from the Catholic communion, can be violated: that it is

and dominions. We, too, consider an attempt or design against the life of Kings and Princes, even under the pretext of religion, as a horrid and detestable crime.

*

*

But the honorable gentleman from Massachusetts seems to have provided himself against such

"At the very commencement of the yet infant Church, blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles, instructing the faithful, exhorted them in these words: Be ye subject to every human creature for God's sake, whether it be to the King as of evil doers, and for the praise of the good: for so is the will excelling, or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of God, that by doing well you may silence the ignorance of

HO. OF REPS.

foolish men. The Catholic Church being directed by these precepts, the most renowned champions of the Christian name replied to the Gentiles, when raging against them, as enemies of the Empire, with furious hatred: we are constantly praying (Tertullion in Apologet, chap. XXX.) that all the Emperors may enjoy long life, quiet government, a loyal household, a brave army, a faithful Senate, an honest people, and general tranquillity. The bishops of Rome, successors of Peter, have not ceased to inculcate this doctrine, especially to missionaries, lest any ill will should be excited against the professors of the Catholic faith in the minds of those who are enemies of the Christian name. We pass over the illustrious proofs of this fact, preserved in the records of ancient Roman Pontiffs, of which yourselves are not ignorant. We think proper, notwithstanding, to remind you of a late admonition of the most wise Pope Benedict XIV., who, in his regulations for the English missions, which are likewise applicable to you, speaks thus: The vicars Apostolic are to take diligent care that the missionaries behave on all occasions with integrity and decorum, and thus become good models to others; and particularly that they be always ready to celebrate the sacred offices, to communicate proper instructions to the people, and to comfort the sick with their assistance; that they, by all means, avoid public assemblies of idle men and taverns. The vicars themselves are particularly charged to punish, in such manner as they can, but severely, all those who do not speak of the public government with respect.

"England herself can witness the deep-rooted impressions such admonitions have made on the minds of Catholics. It is well known that, in the late war, which had extended to the greater part of America, when most flourishing provinces, inhabited almost by persons separated from the Catholic Church, had renounced the Government of the King of Great Britain, the Province of Canada alone, filled, as it is, almost with innumerable Catholics, although artfully tempted, and not yet forgetful of the French Government, remained most faithful in its allegiance to England. Do you, most excellent prelates, converse frequently on these principles; often remind your suffragant prelates of them; when preaching to your people, exhort them, again and again, to honor all men, to love the brotherhood, to fear God, to honor the King.

"Those duties of a Christian are to be cherished in every Kingdom and State, but particularly in your own, of Great Britain and Ireland, where, from the benevolence of a most wise King, and other most excellent rulers of those Kingdoms, towards Catholics, no cruel and grievous burden is imposed, and Catholics themselves experience a mild and gentle Government. If you pursue this line of conduct unanimously; if you act in the spirit of charity; if, while you direct the people of the Lord, you have nothing in view but the salvation of souls, adversaries will be ashamed (we repeat it) to calumniate, and will freely acknowledge that the Catholic faith is of heavenly descent, and calculated not only to procure a blessed life, but likewise, as St. Augustin observes, in his one hundred and thirty-eighth letter, addressed to Marcellinus, to promote the most lasting peace of this earthly city, inasmuch as it is the safest prop and shield of Kingdom. Let those who say (the words are those of the holy doctor) that the doctrine of Christ is hostile to the Republic, produce an army of such soldiers as the doctrine of Christ has required; let them furnish such inhabitants of provinces, such husbands, such wives, such parents, such children, such masters, such servants, such Kings, such judges, finally, such payers of debts and collectors of the revenue, as the doctrine of Christ enjoins, and then they may dare to assert that it is inimical to the Republic-rather let them not hesitate to acknowledge that it is, when practiced, of great advantage to the Republic. The same holy doctor, and all the other fathers of the Church, with one voice, most clearly demonstrate, by invincible arguments, that the whole of this salutary doctrine cannot exist with permanent consistency and stability, or flourish except in the Catholic society, which is spread and preserved all over the world, by communion with the See of Rome, as a sacred bond of union, divinely connecting both. From our very high esteem and affection for you, we earnestly wish that the great God may very long preserve you safe. Farewell. "As your lordship's most affectionate brother, "L. CARDINAL ANTONELLI, Prefect. "A. ARCHBISHOP OF ADEN, Secretary. “ ROME, June 23, 1791."

While on the disavowal of the Pope, I may as well make an addition to assist in the testimony. The following document was drawn up by the Roman Catholic committee in Dublin, and published by them on the 17th of March, 1792, after it had been submitted to the Archbishops and Bishops of Ireland, and received their entire sanction. To give it greater weight, the same instrument was put into the form of an oath, retaining, as far as possible, the very words. It was then submitted to the Pope and Cardinals, who solemnly declared that it was consonant to, and expressive of, the Roman Catholic doctrine; and then it was taken by the Catholic archbishops, bishops, priests, and laity of Ireland.

"We, the Catholics of Ireland, in deference to the opinion of many respectable bodies and individuals among our Protestant brethren, do hereby, in the face of our country, of all Europe, and before God, make this, our deliberate and solemn declaration.

"We abjure, disavow, and condemn the opinion, that Princes excommunicated by the Pope and council, or by any ecclesiastical authority whatsoever, may, therefore, be deposed or murdered by their subjects, or by any other persons. We hold such doctrine in detestation, as wicked and impious; and we declare that we do not believe that either the Pope, with or without the general council, or any pre

33D CONG....2D SESS.

late or priest, or any ecclesiastical power whatsoever, can absolve the subjects of this kingdom, or any of them, from their allegiance to his Majesty King George III., who is, by authority of Parliament, the lawful King of this realm.

"2. We abjure, condemn, and detest as unchristian and impious, the principle that it is lawful to murder, or destroy, or anywise injure any person whatsoever, for or under the pretense of being heretics; and we declare solemnly before God, that we believe no act in itself unjust, immoral, or wicked, can ever be justified or excused by or under the pretense or color that it was done either for the good of the Church, or in obedience to any ecclesiastical power whatso

ever.

3. We further declare, that we hold it as unchristian and impious principle, that no faith is to be kept with beretics.' This doctrine we detest and reprobate, not only as contrary to our religion, but as destructive of morality, of society, and even of common honesty; and it is our firm belief, that an oath made to any person not of the Catholic religion, is equally binding as if it were made to any Catholic whatsoever..

4. We have been charged with holding, as an article of our belief, that the Pope, with or without a general council, or that certain ecclesiastical powers, can acquit or absolve us before God from our oaths of allegiance, or even from the just oaths or contracts entered into between man and man.

"Now we utterly renounce, abjure, and deny that we hold or maintain any such belief, as being contrary to the peace and happiness of society, inconsistent with morality, and above all, repugnant to the true spirit of the Catholic religion."

Here, then, is another clear, explicit disavowal on the part of the Pope and his Cardinals of the doctrine imputed to the church, and another full and complete response to the challenge of the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. Chairman, the Roman Catholic Church neither holds nor inculcates a doctrine of power in its head to interfere in the affairs of temporal Governments, to disturb the monarch, or release the subject. It never has held any such doctrine. It never has taught that its professors were to be influenced by its doctrines to combine against the Government, and Catholic citizens have been as faithful to the Government under which they lived as those of any other denomination of Christians. In this country, Mr. Chairman, where, by the nature of our institutions, no creed is allowed to be molested, and where, by constitutional provision, no advantage can be allowed the professors of a creed on account of that profession, how unjust is it to the public, how cruel to the confessors of a creed, to create and keep alive an excitement which involves in obloquy a large class of citizens invested with every right that any American citizen can claim, who are able, by their talents, character, attainments and patriotism, to do honor to the citizenship which they are not allowed to enjoy. I must not be told that "all the rights of citizenship are open to Catholics, when office is denied." The man who asserts that, is ignorant of the first impulse of republicanism-ignorant, I venture to say, of the strongest motives of his own action.

The right of suffrage is connected with the right of office, and the freeman's privilege of voting for the man whom he would elect, would be not worth the exercise, if it did not include the right of presenting himself for votes for any office whose functions are not beyond his faculties.

Form a class of citizens, sir, in this country, with any disability not imposed upon others, and you create a dangerous party in the Commonwealth. Inequality of political condition can only be maintained in a Republic where there is inequality of mind, talents, and attainment. Allow to any class in this country the rights of education, the attainment of wealth, the right of social equality, of suffrage, and it will not be long before that class will demand the boon that freemen seek, and denial will be unsafe.

It is mean, it is cowardly, as well as false, for any man, or set of men, to assert that, in combining to exclude all Catholics from office, they do no more than exercise the right not to vote for individuals, which is as clear as the right to vote for them.

Sir, if the opposition seen and felt abroad, and heard here, in this Hall, means anything more than a miserable, beggarly appeal to low prejudices, with a view of holding office, it means that Catholics ought to be excluded from all office; and if they are, because they are Catholics, ineligible to place, then, those who assert it are bound to change the Constitution, or openly violate its provisions. Will that be done? Will they have courage to do it? They must do it to be

French Spoliations—Mr. Mayall.

consistent. They must forbear to be honest-a much more difficult effort.

Will that be done, and the question of the constitutional rights settled? or shall the Catholic Christian hear himself insulted, as he has been more than once here, with the offensive imputation which I have endeavored to refute? Shall the heart of the American Catholics be wounded with stale rumors-rumors revived for party actionuncredited tales to their dishonor, or hypothetical charges of concealed treason, which, while it ventures upon no specification, disturbs the public mind, awakens slumbering prejudices, sharpens religious animosities, and gives occasion for the mean, the ignorant, and the vulgar ambitious to rise into power, by the combination of their own class with those who, failing in other combinations, hide their disgrace, and avenge their former defeat by such associations as make minorities contemptible in themselves, and render majorities dangerous to the Republic.

Mr. Chairman, one more word and I will close. I have fairly and fully met the accusations made by the honorable gentleman from Massachusetts, against the Church of which I am a member. Step after step he retreated, until he had planted himself on the Bishop of Rome; and there he challenged the citation of a single disavowal on the part of the Pontiff, that he claimed temporal power over the subjects of other Governments, Step by step I have followed him, and concluded the array of disavowals by a presentation to this committee of an explicit denial on the part of the Pope that any such authority or right was claimed by the Church or by him.

Mr. Chairman, to the warnings expressed here, and the nervous apprehensions expressed abroad, that the prevalence of the Catholic religion will be dangerous to the country, I have only to say, that we of this country are in no danger from Catholicity, Episcopacy, Calvinism, Lutheranism, or other forms of Christianity. Sir, Christianity in any form is better than Infidelity and Atheism. And Atheism is now at work, as it ever has been busy, against the Christian faith and Christian prohibitions. It assails the Roman Catholic first, because that creed is more extensive; and without considering the evil which each is doing to religion, Christian men are yielding themselves, unconsciously, co-workers with infidelity by their active hostility to each other.

Mr. Chairman, if this country is to fall by any other means than ordinary decay or local convulsions, it is not Christianity, not the Christianity of Geneva, Rome, Scotland, or England, that will produce the ruin. The mischief will be wrought by infidelity. Sapping first the confidence of the people in each other, undermining the foundations of Christian charity, breaking the bonds of social life, relaxing the ties of moral obligations, setting creeds in hostile attitudes, till there is nothing left for hostility, and bringing down the whole scheme of domestic, social, and political life to the plans and ends of Socialists and Atheists, who laugh at the existence of a God, and seek their triumphs in the obliteration of the doctrines and teachings of Christ.

Mr. Chairman, I have forborne to-day all retaliatory imputations, all irritating comparisons, and confined myself to a refutation of a charge made against men of the Roman Catholic creed. 1 have not sought this contest, but, for the sake of honor, of truth, of myself and my co-religionists, for the sake of the institutions and the Constitution of my country, I could not decline it. I have evaded no point, nor attempted to darken counsel. I have met the charge fairly, candidly, and truthfully. I have dealt in no street rumors. I have confided in no idle gossip. I have adduced no testimony not of my own knowledge, or from those who are authorized to speak to the question at issue, and with reference thereto, with my hand upon my heart, and my eye on Heaven, I call this House, and (I speak with reverence) I call my God to witness the truth of all the assertions made from my own convictions and knowledge, and my entire confidence in the credibility of all the testimony which I have adduced from others.

NOTE. The object of this speech being, not to defend any doctrine of the Catholic Church, but simply to defend

HO. OF REPS.

the Church and its members from the charge of holding as an article of faith, what is not a part of the Catholic creed, it has been deemed appropriate to copy the following from a Prayer Book, in much use among the Catholics: "This (the Pope's) commission regards only the Kingdom of Heaven, that is the society which Christ established upon earth to be one fold under one shepherd, to be brought by the practice of virtue and the power of His institutions, through His merits to the possession of eternal glory. This commission extends not, then, a power to the Pope of interfering in the temporal, the civil, or the political regulations of nations."

FRENCH SPOLIATIONS.

SPEECH OF HON. SAM. MAYALL,
OF MAINE,

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
January 27, 1855.

The House being in the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union

Mr. MAYALL said:

Mr. CHAIRMAN: By the first section of the bill before this committee, it is proposed to appropriate a sum "not exceeding $5,000,000," in accordance with the mode thereafter provided, to indemnify the claims of our citizens for spoliations committed upon their ships and property by the Government of France, while engaged in legal commerce, under the authority of the Government of the United States.

Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to limiting this amount, in advance, to $5,000,000, but would leave the amount to be designated by the commissioners therein provided; and, with this exception, I am in favor of the passage of this bill. If these claims are not just and valid as against this Government, it should not pay the $5,000,000, or any less sum. But if they are just as against this Government, they should be paid to the extent of their justice; and I know of no better mode than that provided by this bill to ascertain that extent.

Mr. Chairman, the first question which naturally presents itself is, upon what just principle is the Government of the United States bound to make good the losses sustained by its citizens by the authority of the Government of France? The answer clearly is upon no equitable principle except it be founded upon the action of our Government voluntarily expressed. Has, then, our Government, by its voluntary action, rendered itself so liable? The last clause of the fifth article of the

amendments to the Constitution is in these words:

"Nor shall private property be taken for public use with out just compensation."

It will be recollected that this Government had entered into a treaty of alliance with France in 1778; and also, of amity and commerce at the same time. This was during our revolutionary struggle. These treaties were formed at the earnest solicitations of the Government of the

United States. The eleventh article of the treaty of alliance, of February 6th, 1778, is in the following words:

"The two parties guaranty, mutually, from the present time, and forever, against all other powers, to wit: The United States to His Most Gracious Majesty, the present possessions of the Crown of France in America, as well as those which it may acquire by the future treaty of peace.' 'And His Most Christian Majesty guaranties, on his part, to the United States, their liberty, sovereignty, and independence, absolute and unlimited, as well in matters of government as commerce, and also, their possessions, and the additions or conquests that their Confederation may obtain during the war, from any of the dominions now or heretofore possessed by Great Britain, in North America, conformable to the fifth and sixth articles above written; the whole of these possessions shall be fixed and assured to the said States at the moment of the cessation of their present war with England.'

"SEC. 12. In order to fix more precisely the sense and application of the preceding article, the contracting parties declare, that in case of a rupture between France and England, the reciprocal guarantee, declared in the said article, shall have its full force and effect the moment such war shall break out; and if such rupture shall not take place, the mutual obligations of said guarantee shall not commence until the moment of the cessation of the present war between the United States and England shall have ascertained their possessions."

The seventeenth article of the treaty of amity and commerce with France, entered into on the same day, (September 6, 1778,) is as follows:

"It shall be lawful for the ships of war of either party, and privateers, freely to carry, whithersoever they please, the ships and goods taken from their enemies, without being obliged to pay any duty to the officers of the admiralty,

33D CONG....2D SESS.

or any other judges; nor shall such prizes be arrested or seized, when they come to enter the ports of either party; nor shall the searchers or other officers of those places search the same, or make examination concerning the lawfulness of such prizes; but they may hoist sail at any time, and depart, and carry their prizes to the places expressed in their commissions, which the commanders of such ships of war shall be obliged to show. On the contrary, no shelter or refuge shall be given in their ports to such as shall have made prizes of the subjects, people, or property, of either of the parties; but if such shall come in, being forced by stress of weather, or the danger of the sea, all proper means shall be vigorously used that they go out and retire from thence as soon as possible."

The above articles contain the material points of the treaty which pertain to my present purpose, in relation to the obligation of the Government of the United States to indemnify our citizens for spoliations committed by France by the seizure and appropriation of their property to the uses of its Government, in her war with England, which broke out early in 1793. We had gained from France all which the treaty of alliance had guarantied, to wit: our "liberty, sovereignty, and independence, absolute and unlimited, as well in matters of government as commerce. For this we had paid nothing to France; but our independence had cost her about $280,000,000, besides the immense loss of the best blood of France. She had thus far reaped nothing from those victories, which she had so nobly helped to achieve, but the satisfaction of having assisted the United Colonies to strip England of the richest and most powerful dependencies which any nation on earth had ever possessed: Shall we be told that England was the most formidable rival of France; and that France wished to weaken the British power, and to humble her pride? Although this might have been a motive with France, it does not lessen our debt of gratitude to her for the benefits we had gained from her alliance with us. Again, did that relinquish us from our obligations to fulfill our treaty of amity and commerce, made with France on the same day, and the same year? Can a selfish motive, in an ally who performs what she stipulates, lessen our obligation to fulfill, on our own part, or pay an equivalent for the forfeiture? Can suspicions of an ulterior object, in an ally, wipe out the stigma of forfeited national honor in us? France had fulfilled her obligations to us, and we had entered upon the possession of our inheritance by the acknowledgment of our independence by the Government of Great Britain. I'insist, then, that we were bound, in some manner, to redeem our obligation to France, either by one mode or another.

I do not say that, under the circumstances and necessities of the case, we were bound to declare war against England at all hazards, in order to fulfill our treaty stipulations with France, in her war of 1793. This I am not prepared to say; for I can well conceive just reasons growing out of the condition of the United States, at that early period of her national existence, which might well justify General Washington's proclamation of neutrality, issued April 22, 1793, and which France insisted was an invasion of the treaty of 1778 between the two Governments. Whether this be so or not is not material to the present purpose in view. Since the partisan mists which surrounded and darkened the subject have become dissipated by time, I believe I may be permitted, however, to say that the wisdom and prudence of the course then taken by General Washington and his Cabinet can hardly, at this distant day, admit of two opinions. But if the terms of the treaty of 1778 were alone to govern us, I think it might fairly be considered that our Government was honorably bound to take up arms in defense of the Government of France. But if, from our weakness, we could not hope to defend the West India possessions of France, why hazard our own interests with no prospect of benefiting hers?

The French Revolution of 1789 resulted in deposing the King of France and in establishing a republican form of Government. From this period until 1793, when France declared war against England, both Governments were in an attitude of hostility towards each other; and each were secretly devising means to compel the other to declare war, although by treaty they were on terms of peace and amity. England sought every opportunity to embarrass and disturb the Government and internal policy of France. She took sides with

French Spoliations—Mr. Mayall.

her royalists from the moment of her revolution. She desired the restoration of the King with his prerogatives. To this end she is said to have become a party to the treaty of Pavia, in July, 1791; also, a party to the treaty of Pitnitz, August 27,|| the same year. She ordered that all Frenchmen within her borders should leave the country. She prohibited the exportation of provisions to France, in time of great distress, bordering almost upon famine, and prohibited the sailing of neutral vessels out of her ports, which were bound to France, laden with breadstuffs and provisions. In addition to all this, when the Prussians took possession of the Hanse-Towns, all French and neutral vessels, which escaped capture by fleeing from their ports, were seized by British cruisers and taken into British ports. England had secured the coöperation of twenty States or independent Powers, by which she threatened to invade France simultaneously, with five armies, each consisting of one hundred thousand men. This is the outline of the course and conduct of England towards France at this critical period of her history.

It is equally true that France, who had achieved a civil revolution within her own borders, which had changed or transformed her from a monarchy into a republic, was secretly endeavoring to extend her own institutions to her neighboring States; the inevitable consequence of which was to disturb the civil condition of her neighbors, with whom she was, by treaty of peace, on terms of amity, and, if successful, could but result in the overthrow of their existing forms of Government. The exist ence of a republic, to the peace and stability of the surrounding monarchies, was, by an inherent law of its nature, dangerous and aggressive. By the force of its example it was, of itself, sufficient to call forth the sympathies of the down-trodden masses in favor of a republican Government, and, therefore, the jealousy of the monarchists, and to arouse the latter into a combined effort, under some pretext or other, to subvert it, even by the force of arms, in order to restore its former dynasty. Under this state of coëxisting and discordant elements, it became most evident that a general conflict of arms must soon ensue. Hence the war of 1793, between France and England. When this war broke out, France naturally turned for assistance to her American allies, with whom she had formed a treaty of alliance in a period of our distress. But here she was met only by a proclamation of neutrality, put forth by General Washington, then at the head of the American Army, but now at the head of the American Government, with the full knowledge of the existing treaty relations between France and the United States; well knowing the strong sympathies of the American masses in behalf of her oldest friend and ally, engaged now in a bitter and deadly contest with her oldest enemy. This led to the formation of new political parties in this country, which resulted, in 1798, in a change of our Administration, and in 1800, to a new treaty, whereby we became released from our former treaty, as contained in the eleventh and twelfth sections of the treaty of alliance of 1778, and also, from the treaty of amity and commerce of the same day. But how did our Government obtain her release from the conditions and burdens imposed upon her by these treaties? She never claimed to have fulfilled them. She obtained her release then by purchase, and by purchase only. But did she pay this in her own funds, out of the Treasury of the United States? This she does not claim to have done. How, then, did she pay? History answers, she canceled, or paid it, by offsetting the claims of her private citizens for spoliations committed by France, and for which France had promised to make restitution; and by set-off only did she make that restitution. To absolve France, then, from payment by this exchange, was the voluntary act of our Government, and by which she became fully responsible, in the language of the Constitution, to make them "just compensation.' She appropriated the admitted claims of her citizens to discharge her own obligations to a foreign Power. Was not this the taking of "private property for public use," and a plain contravention of the letter and spirit of the Constitution, which declares "nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation?" But are we called upon for proof that France ever

HO. OF REPS.

made.

I will now give some official authority to show that our Government did cancel these claims for spoliations committed on the property of American citizens, by way of set-off to the claims of France against the Government of the United States in the treaty of 1800. By the retrenchment of or striking out its second article, which embraced these two points, and these two points only,-1. The treaty itself shows this; but to that I shall refer hereafter, Mr. Robert R. Livingston, Minister to France, in his letter to M. Talleyrand, dated 17th of April, 1802, says:

"It will, sir, be well recollected by the distinguished characters who had the management of the negotiation

(of 1800,) that the payment for illegal captures with damages

and indemnities was demanded on the one sidé, and the renewal of the treaties of 1778 on the other; that they were considered as of equivalent value, and that they only formed the subject of the second article."

Consequently, by the retrenchment of this article by Napoleon, they were deemed canceled by virtue of being stricken out "as of equal value." Again, Mr. Livingston, writing under date of January 13th, 1802, to our Secretary of State, says: "I always considered the sacrifices we have made of an immense claim (alluding to the French spoliations) to get rid of the French treaties, as a dead loss."

Whether by this adjustment of the respective claims of the two Governments, our Government did get an equivalent for the claims of our citizens, is not now to be made a question, but whether those claims were so canceled and disposed of by treaty with France, and ratified by the constituted authorities of the Government of the United States, is now the only inquiry. Again, Mr. Timothy Pickering, addressing Mr. James H. Causten, Esq., of Baltimore, on November 19th, 1824, on the question in point, says:

"Thus the Government bartered the just claims of our merchants on France, to obtain a relinquishment of the French claims for a restoration of the old treaties. "

Much other proof might be adduced to establish the same point, but it is not deemed necessary. May 9th, 1793, France had issued her decree, authorizing the seizure of neutral vessels bound to the ports of her enemies, with the assurance of proper indemnity for the goods and property seized. This decree was made both retrospective and prospective; to be deemed in force from the commencement to the termination of the war. In February, 1793, General Washington also issued a proclamation of neutrality, which brought American merchant ships within the limits of the French decree of May 9th, 1793. The valuation of the cargoes taken as prizes were to be rated by the prices which these goods and provisions commanded in the ports of France, where, from the great scarcity of breadstuffs, flour was worth from thirty to forty dollars per barrel; while at the ports of Great Britain, who was committing the same depredations, flour commanded but from six to ten dollars per barrel, and other provisions in like proportion. It must be recollected that France was in a state almost bordering on a famine, as the extreme high prices of flour and

33D CONG....2D SESS.

provisions will show. While the prices of the same articles of provisions at the British ports will show, that while France committed these depredations upon the commerce of neutral nations from extreme necessity, the British Government could have been actuated by no such necessity. It was, therefore, on the part of Great Britain, simply dictated by a policy to starve France into submission, that she committed and justified these unlawful seizures and depredations upon the rights and property of neutral nations.

Again, the records of the negotiations between the United States and France show that France always admitted the validity of these claims, and if she had not, they could have been substantiated and demanded upon the equitable principles of the laws of nations. In the second place, the American Government had always asserted their justice, and pressed the Government of France to their payment. It is not necessary that I should detail all the efforts of the two Governments to determine and adjust all the differences arising out of the treaties and claims of the respective parties, but it is sufficient only to advert to the treaty of 1800 to establish the question in point. A mission, composed of Messrs. Ellsworth, Davy, and Murray, reached Paris 2d March, 1800. This negotiation ended in the convention of September 30, 1800. The second and fifth articles of that convention have a direct bearing on the mutual claims and demands of the two countries. Article second declares:

"The

French Spoliations—Mr. Benton.

it was specified in the treaty of 1801 or not, the just and full payment of the dues of her citizens, as if they had been originally claims against our Government itself. It is well known that France liquidated all the claims of American merchantmen, where the spoliations or seizures took place after the treaty of 1800. Suppose that France had had no claim upon the Government of the United States prior to 1793, when war broke out between her and England, can it be doubted but that she would have adjusted those claims for seizures anterior to the treaty of 1800 in like manner as she did those which occurred subsequent to that period? Again: Suppose France not to have had claims against our Government, but to have committed the depredations she did upon citizens of the United States, and had refused to make them good upon the demand of our Government, would it not have been just cause of war on the part of the United States? Most certainly it would. It is true that circumstances might have existed whereby our Government might not have been bound to declare war to redress the wrongs of her citizens; but unless there were strong justifying circumstances to the contrary, she would have been bound to do so, both in accordance with her constitutional obligations and in defense of her national honor. If these would justify a national war to redress the wrongs upon American citizens where their rights have been trampled upon by a foreign Power, how ought our Government, then, to be scrupulous to observe the just rights of her citizens, and to vindicate her own honor by

ance of the 6th of February, 1778, the treaty of amity and commerce of the same date, and the convention of the 14th of November, 1788, nor upon the indemnities mutually due or claimed, the parties will negotiate further on these subjects at a convenient time, and until they may have agreed on these points, the said treaties and convention shall have no operation, and the relation between the two countries shall be regulated as follows:

"ART. 5. The debts contracted by one of the two nations with individuals of the other, shall be paid, or the payment may be prosecuted in the same manner as if there had been no misunderstanding between the two States. But this clause shall not extend to indemnities claimed on account of captures or confiscations."

The object of this second article was to confine the settlement of claims, " on account of captures and confiscations," to treaty between the two

This

is due? If to them it was a debt justly due from France prior to the treaty of 1800, it must, in the sense and to the same extent, be equally just as against this Government since the treaty of 1800. If it were not a just claim upon France, it should not have been demanded. If it has been liquidated by France in the treaty which was ratified December 19, 1801, it should not longer be withheld from the rightful claimants; but restitution, full, speedy and ample restitution can alone vindicate the justice and the honor of this Government.

FRENCH SPOLIATION BILL.

OF MISSOURI,

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

January 24, 1855.

HO. OF REPS.

from popular ballads than from dignified history; and so of pictures, and even caricatures; and of this truth the subject in hand furnished an illustration. There was a certain picture in the times of this supposed destruction of our commerce, which I am old enough to have seen, and which was the veracious history of the day in relation to it. It was the representation of a large and beautiful white cow, with an ample udder, hugely distended: a short thick man, with an anxious countenance, holding her by the horns; a lean slender one, equally anxious in the visage, holding her by the tail; and a well-proportioned, well-satisfied looking man milking her with both hands-the copious double stream_pouring foaming into a most enormous pail. That cow was commerce; that short man was John Bull; the slender one was France; and the man at the milk pail was Brother Jonathan. And this was the true history of our commerce at that time-the most prosperous we have ever seen, before or since, by two to one. True, there were great losses at sea, but also great gains. There were risks, but the gain was in proportion; and if every second or third vessel escaped capture, a fortune was made. Besides, there were insurers then, as well as now; and also illegal, as well as legal traffic; and the illegal was most profitable, and, therefore, most tempting. It was a state of war between Great Britain and France, and war has its list of contraband articles; and confiscation is their lawful fate when detected; and many detections and confiscations took place.

With the alteration specified in this proviso, it was returned, to be submitted again to the Government of France. It was ratified by the First Consul, with this additional proviso: "That by this retrenchment the two States renounce the respective pretensions which are the subject of said article." With this further modification, it was again submitted to the Government of the United States; and, on the 19th of December, 1801, it was fully ratified, and returned to the President of the United States to be proclaimed to the country in due form. The effect of this retrenchment, in the proviso by Napoleon, was the renunciation of the "respective pretensions" of the two Governments for claims upon the other; or, in other words, was virtually but an off-set of the claims of the one against those of the other, without regard to their respective or comparative amounts.

It is clear, then, that, by this act of our Government in the treaty of December 19, 1801, the claims of our citizens upon France for indemnities became thereby foreclosed thenceforth and I forever. This release of their claims was a voluntary assumption of their property and rights to obtain a discharge of our Government from the claims of France upon her. We insist, then, that, by this act, our Government, whose right to do this we do not contest, clearly assumed, whether

Mr. BENTON said:

Mr. CHAIRMAN AND GENTLEMEN OF THE COMMITTEE: I feel it to be conducive to the right understanding of this case to commence with opposing some figures of arithmetic to a certain figure of rhetoric which, since thirty years, has been flourishing in Congress on the subject of our commerce during the wars of the French revolution; and which figure of rhetoric refuses to "down" for all the bidding we can give it; and, therefore, must be knocked down. This rhetorical figure is: That, during these wars, our commerce was swept from the ocean, and our citizens continually robbed and plundered by the illegal seizure and confiscation of their property by the French. The figures of arithmetic which I oppose to this flourish, show that this commerce, thus supposed to have been annihilated, was just about double as prosperous at that time as it ever had been before, or since, or is now; and those figures stand thus: Our population then was about five millions-now about twenty-five-territory and cultivation increasing in the same proportion; and our exports rose to $91,000,000. Our exports now, to be in proportion to those during the wars of the French revolution-from 1793 to 1800-should be $450,000,000; they are but $230,000,000! after deducting the $40,000,000 of exported domestic gold. This is the answer of arithmetic to rhetoric; and it sweeps the foundation from under these claims. History has been often taught in songs, in pictures, and in caricatures: and truly taught. There are more persons who know the border wars between the English and Scotch-the battle of Chevy Chase, and its thousand similitudes

de pluch for that item, a sort of outside defense and side blow against these claims. I now come to the vitals of the case, and plunge right into them at once. The whole stress of the claims rest upon that guarantee of her West India Islands given in our treaty of alliance with France in 1778, supposed to be very onerous to us, and which was supposed to have been purchased off by a surrender of the claimant's valuable property in the year 1800. That is the whole case; and just see how easily it will be demolished. That guarantee and its supposed burden on us, is no new question, either for consideration or decision. It was considered and settled sixty years agosixty-one and a half, to be precise and settled by those who had the right to settle it, and knew how to settle it; and whose decision was final, as it concerned us, whether right or wrong. It was settled by Washington and his Cabinet in April, 1793, immediately after the French National Convention declared war against Great Britain-settled Congress, acquiesced in by the people, and settled right; but, whether right or wrong, no appeal lies to us; and we have enough to do to keep things right in our own day, without going back two generations, to set up our ignorance against the knowledge of our ancestors. That Proclamation of Neutrality! the whole world has resounded with it! and in issuing it, and thereby saving us from the vortex of European wars and politics, Washington, in my opinion, doubled the measure of his services to his country, and increased the measure of his own glory-great as were those services and that glory before that time. The proclamation was his work, sanctioned by the unanimous voice of his Cabinet, and approved by Congress and the people. On the 18th of April, 1793, he propounded to his Cabinet a series of questions, of which the two first only concern the present argument. The first was, whether a proclamation of neutrality should be issued; the second, whether the Minister of the French Republic should be received. Both questions were unanimously answered in the affirmative, and immediately acted upon. The proclamation issued, and we were saved from involvement in the most terrible wars which ever inflicted nations. True, the proclamation did not mention the guarantee; but it rested on principles and arguments which covered it, and which were understood to apply to it, and to be applied when the question occurred. It rested on two arguments, each valid under the law of nations, and each releasing us from the obligation of guarantee. The first was, the impossibility of complying with that obligation, except at the risk of our own ruin, or fatal damage. In such cases, the law of nations allows the party entering into such calamitous engagement to plead the ruin to