Page images


330 CONG....20 Sess.

French SpoliationsMr. Millson.


[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

that fire insurance companies are always and ne- ants as creditors of the United States. If it did, || publication of the reports of our Ministers, he
cessarily great sufferers from conflagrations. They it would provide for the ascertainment of the demanded to know by what authority they had
derive their profits from conflagrations. They amounts due, and then direct their payment in foll; || presumed to hold intercourse with these agents,
would have no existence if there were no confia. but it simply appropriates the sum of $5,000,000, as persons speaking on his behalf.
grations, for no man would ever insure his house which is to be received in discharge of all claims, Sir, in the communications addressed to the
against loss by fire if no house was ever destroyed however much they may exceed that amount; and French Government, they clearly set forth the
by fire.

we all know they willgreatly exceed it. There could claims of our citizens, and triumphantly vindicated Here, then, were risks deliberately assumed by be no stronger objection to the bill than to say the the honor and good faith of ihe United States these insurance companies, and for which they Government is indebted to these claimants. It | against the loose charges and frivolous pretensions, were amply compensated. It was by these risk's would be disgraceful to the country that the pay. set up by France for the mere purpose of refusing they were enabled to make great profits, and dis- ment of just debts should be withheld for sixiy that justice which she had neither the inclination tribute to their stockholders large dividends. So years, and then compounded for at twenty-five or nor the ability to grant. But these representations far from being sufferers from French spoliations, fifty cents on the dollar.

were treated with contempt. The most insolent their fortunes were built on the very losses of the Then, what are the grounds on which this meas- language was applied to our Government. Insult real sufferers; and it is a mockery, an abuse of ure rests? The only ground at all consistent with after insult was heaped upon our Ministers. language, to say, that in granting them relief, we its provisions is, that though there is no debt, | Their public character was denied them, and they are only yielding what is due them as common though no liability has ever existed, and no obli- were even threatened with the supervision of the sufferers from the depredations of the French. gation assumed to pay any of the claims our citi- police. Hints were thrown out that they, or, at

But, sir, I wish further to show, that if they zens had against France, yet, that in negotiating | least, Mr. Pinckney and Mr. Marshall, would conare allowed to share this relief, the American peo- the treaty of peace between France and the United sult their interest by quitting the territory of ple will be twice laxed to reimburse their losses. Scales, in the year 1800

France; and this insolende rose to so high a pitch, Who was it that paid the premiums received, and Mr. BAYLY. The gentleman does not mean that Talleyrand, in an official letter to Mr. Gerry, which more than indemuified them for all the losses to call it a liealy of peace ?

whom he wished to detain in Paris, wrote as folthey sustained? Why, the people at large. The Mr. MILL-ON. Yes, sir, a treaty of peace; lows: merchant who advanced these heavy premiums, for such it was in effect as well as in terms. It

" I suppose, sir, tbat Messrs. Pincknoy and Marshall have did it with a knowledge that the profits of a suc- commences with the declaration that there shall be

thought ii useful and proper, in consequence of the intimacessful voyage woulu secure a full remuneration. "a firm, inviolable, and universal peace" between tion which the end of my note of March 18, 1798, presents, The expenses of insurance were charged upon the the French Republic and the United States; and

and the obstacle wbich their known opinions have induced

10 llie desired reconciliation, 10 quit the territory of the price of his goods. The consumers paid back all it was a treaty of peace, though I am in different

these expenses. The people bore all these bur- about the style of it. But I was about to say, the
dens; and yet it is now proposed to tax them bill before us seems to proceed upon the assump:

They were compelled to leave France. It was again for the purpose of relieving the insurance tion thal, though no debt is due by the United with the greatest difficulty that Mr. Pinckney, companies from losses, which they were relieved States on account of these claime, yet, in ratifying whose daughter was then lying dangerously ill, from at the time by these premiums, charged in the treaty of 1800, our Government impliedly en- could procure a delay of a few days. They rethe prices of the goods, and paid by the people gaged to trouble France no more about them; and turned to the United States, but even before their that consumed them. The insurance compa- we might, therefore, with propriety, extend some arrival their reports had been communicated by nies, then, were not sufferers, and many of them relief io the sufferers.

the President to Congress, and had been laid be. even declared large dividends; for their losses Sir, there is no other plausible ground on which fore the American people. They produced a blaze were made up from the premiums paid by the this measure can be placed. If a debt be due by of indignation. Even Mr. Jefferson trembled for merchants whose voyages were not interrupted. our Government to these claimants, pray tell me the supremacy of the Republican party when the These merchants were not sufferers, for they how it arose? Is it pretended that we incurred X. Y. Z documents, known to have been drawn were reimbursed in the sale of their goods Then this obliga ion by a failure to prosecute their up by Judge Marshall, came to be published. who did lose? Why, sir, the consumers, who claims with sufficient diligence and earnesiness!

There was a universal demand for the adoption of paid the increased price, and the merchants whose That cannot be said, fir never was a Government such measures as would vindicate the national property was captured-those who were unin- more solicitous to de end the rights and redress reputation. Then it was that those acts, just resured, and even those who were insured also, for the wrongs of its citizens, than was ours on this ferred to by my friend from South Carolina, (Mr. they lost the annount of the premiums paid, which occasion. Mission after mission, and of ihe most ORR,) authoriziog hostilities against the French they did not get back as ihey expected, in the eininent men of our country, was sent to France. Republic, were passed by Congress, and which shape of profits. Where the rate of premium For more than seven years their efforts were he character zed as a condition of quasi war. Then was fifty per cent., they lost just as much as the persisted in, and that, too, under circumstances of it was that Congress passed a law declaring that insurance company itself; and yet they can get indignity and insult almost unexampled. So little the treaties between the United States and France nochmg under this bill, while the insurers, stand- effect were they able to produce, inat fresh outrages had been repeatedly violated on the part of France; ing in their stead, are to receive the full value of were constantly perpetrated, while they were still that the just claims of the United States for repathe property insured, or as much of it as the urging their ineffectual demands for redress. ration had been refused, and their attempts to $5,000,000 will discharge. This singular fact, These efforts were first made by Mr Governeur negotiate an amicable adjustment repelled with theil, appears, that the real losers by French apo- Morris, our Minister to France, in 1793; for, even indignity, and enacting that the United States liations, except indeed the uninsured claimants, at that early day, he refers, in a leler to Mr. were of right freed and exonerated from the stipuare excluded from the benefits of the bill, while Jeferson, the Secretary of State, to the captures lations of these treaties, and that the same shall those who were rather gainers than losers are of our vessels by French privateers, as too numer

not henceforth be regarded as legally obligatory on admitted to the full enjoynient of them. Nay, ons to be specified. Mr. Monroe was sent out in the Government or citizens of the United States. · sir, they are even more highly favored than the 1794, ai d his instructions were "to insist upon Sir, I think I may venture the assertion that private claimants; for distribuuon will be made compensation for the captures and spoliations of there was, perhaps, no class of persons in the to them according to the value of the captured our property, and injuries to the persons of our

United States to whom these measures gave more property, without requiring a deduction of the pre- citizens, by French cruisers." In 1797, after the satisfaction, or who were more clamorous in their mium they received, diminishing ifty per cent. the recall of Mr. Monroe at which, by the-by, the demands for these warlike proceedings, than those amount of their loss; while the poor private claim- French Government assume upon themselves

whose descendants or assignees now so loudly ant, who has received no premium, can still get no to evince much resentmeni-Mr. Marshall, Mr | complain of them. more than they.

| Pinckney, and Mr. Gerry were appointed joint en- If, then, it be pretended that the Government In assuming the rate of premiums to be fifty voys to France. They were instructed that "rep- has incurred this liability, because it did not diliper cent., I do not wish to be understood as say. ara'ion for losses sustained by our ci izens was to gently prosecute these claims, there is no sort of ing that that amount was always exacted. I have be pressed with the greatest earnestness," and that foundation for the charge. They were just claims, heard that it was frequently, if not usually charged; “the best possible means of compensation must be and they ought to have been prosecuted earnestly, but, whatever was the ordinary rate, it was deemed attempted." But the French Directory refused to and they were so prosecuted. by the insurers sufficient to answer the risk and receive them, or even to give them all audience. But it is said, that in the ultimate treaty between guard against loss. And, unless gentlemen can Talleyrand, the Minister of Foreign Relations, the two countries, concluded in 1800, the Governshow that they became bankrupt, or that their conferred with them as private citizens, and only ment surrendered these claims, and thus gained lasses were greater than their profits, my proposi- || condescended to hold intercourse with them at ali, || important advantages in inducing a corresponding tion will stand good--that there is but liitle oquity until he became convinced that his un crupulous surrender of the claims of France upon us. 18 in their demand to be classed among the sufferers. machinations for extorting from them a loan to the that the ground of our liability? If it be and it

But, I may be told that these companies are French Republic and a douceur of £50,000 for was put upon that ground to day by the gentleman assignees of the original claimants, and entitled to hunself, would prove uns ccessful. But the am. from Alabama, (Mr. Phillips, and yesterday by demand payment of the debt due them by the bidextroua Talleyrand was ton wary to connect the gentlenian from Ohm, (Mr. DISNEY)-let us Government. I admit they are a sonres, and himself openly with these diagraceful propositions. examine the argument. What were those claims confess there would be serious objection to the His secret agents, referred to in the journals of || Will any gentleman rise and tell me what just proposition to exclude them, if any debt was ever our Ministers as Messrs. X , Y., and Z , and for a claims France ever had against the United Sixtes due by the Government ro them, or to those whose long time only known by those initiale, exhausted for the violation of any treaty? Will any gentle. rights they have acquired. However inequitable their powers of persuasion in the attempt to pre- man say that France could charge us, or ever did muy be their demand, as a debt we cannot resist vail on the American envoys to aid France with charge us, with violating the treaty of alliance, it. But I proceed uoon the assumption that no the desired loan, and to purchase the good will of in respect to the guarantee of her islands? Why, debt is due by the Government. The bill itself is the Minister with the suggested bribe. They sir, as the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Benton] framed upon this assumption. It does not pur- sternly refused, and it was amusing to see his raid yesterday, France never even asked us to port to pay debts. It does not regard these claim.' display of virtuous indignation, when, after the li fulfill this guarantee. He referred only to the

New SERIES.--No. 10.

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

330 CONG....20 SESS.

French SpoliationsMr. Millson,



and says:

testimony of Mr. John Quincy Adams, but he not of right. When it became inconsistent with And she was not backward in availing herself of might have multiplied his authorities. Mr. Genet, our treaty stipulations with England, it was for- | this right, for her armed vessels captured American in his very first communication to the Secretary of | bidden; and it involved no wrong to her, for her property, wherever it was found in the ships of State, says, that though the French nation would treaty with us only authorized her ships of war any of the nations with which she was at war. have a right to reclaim the obligations imposed on to bring th-ir prizes into our poris, without being Sir, she gained more than she lost by it; and, as the United States by the treaties she has contracted | obliged to pay any duty, and to depart and carry

Mr. Jefferson stated in his letter to Genet, we were with them,” yet that she continues “to labor still them away again; but did not authorize her to the actual losers, for the goods lost were our own, to increase the prosperity and add to the happiness make sale of then there. When France com- and those saved only our friends'. Yet, in spite which she is pleased to see them enjoy.

plained that “the Government of the United States of all this, and in flagrant violation of her treaty Mr. Jefferson, in a private leuer io Mr. Madi- does not permit the sale in their ports of prizes with us, she decreed, in 1796, “ That all neutral son, written a day or iwo afterwards, represents made upon England by the cruisers of France,” or allied Powers shall, without delay, be nouified Mr. Genet as saying: our Ministers replied:

that the flag of the French Republic will treat neu• We know that, under present circumstances, we have “ The fact is admitted. To erect it into an offense, it be

tral vessels, either as to confiscation, as to searches, a right to call upon you for the guarantee of our islands.

comes necessary to prove that the measure violates either or capture, in the same manner as they shall suffer But we do not desire it. We wish you to do nothing but the engagements or the neutrality of the United States. the English to treat them.” The gentleman from what is for your own good, and we will do all in our power Neither is attempted."

Ohio admits that this was a violation of her treaty to promote it. Cherish your own peace and prosperity.”

The claim to arm and fit out in our ports her with the United States, but France persisted in In a subsequent letter to Mr. Madison, he

privateers and ships of war, had no ground what- this course, though our Ministers warmly remonsays: ever 10 support it. It was denied on all hands.

strated against it as one "dispensing with the most “Genet mentions freely enough in conversation that What can be more conclusive than the reasoning France does not wish to involve us in the war by our guar

solemn obligations which compact can create.” of Mr. Jefferson, in his dispatch to Mr. Morris, Where, then, sir, is the warrant for the asser

then our Minister to France? He says: In an official note given by Mr. Jefferson, as

tion that France had any just claims against the Secretary of State, to President Washington, and

“But Mr. Genet says that the twenty-second article of United States? On what ground can gentlemen

our treaty allows him expressly in arm in our ports. Why described by him as a “ Note given to the Presi

maintain that, in cesisting from the further proshas he not quoted the very words of that aricle erpressly deot relative to Mr. Genet,” he says:

ecution of the claims of our citizens against allowing it? For that would have put an end to all further " Mr. Genet's declaration to the President, at his recop

question. The words of the article are: It shall not be France, we obtained an equivalent in being retion, that France did not wish to engage the United Stales

lawsul for any orpign privateers, not belonging to the sub- lieved from her demands for indemnity upon us? in the present war, by the clause of guarantee, but left her

jects of the Most Christian King, nor citizens of the l'nited Why, sir, the very strength of our claims against free to pursue her own happiness in peace, has been re. States, who have commissions from any Prince or Stare,

the French Government depended upon the faithpeated in niyself in conversation, and to others, and even

in enmity with either nation, to fit their ships in the ports in a public answer, so as to place it beyond question." of either the one or the uther of the aforesaid parties.'

ful execution of our treaties with her. Had we Translate this from the general terms in which it here stands, been guilty of violating them, France would have Even Talleyrand, five years afterwards, in his into the special case produced by the present war: Pri- had some justification for her course towards us, letter of March, 1798, to Messrs. Pinckney, Mar

vateers not belonging to France, or the United States, and
having commissions from the enemies of one of them, are,

and there would have been no foundation for the shall, and Gerry, admits that France had never

in the present state of things, Briush, Dutch, and Spanish demand of compensation for the spoliations comrequired us to execute this clause of guarantee, privateers.! Substitute these then for the equivalent mitted upon our commerce. And yet, while genterms, it will stand thus : It shall not be lawful for British,

tlemen endeavor to show that these treaties were 66 The Republic was hardly constituted when a minister

Dutch, or Spanisli privaters to fit their ships in the poris of was sent to Philadelphia, whose first act was to declare to the United States.' Is this an express pendission to France

repeatedly violated by the United States, they the United States that they would not be pressed to execute

10 do it? Does the negative to the enemies of France, and somewhat inconsistently declare that France acthe defensive clauses of the treaty of alliance, although the

silence as to France herself, imply an affirmative to France? knowledged her liabiliiy to us for the property circumstances, in ue ieast equivocal manner, exbibited the

Certainly notmit leaves the question, as to France, open taken from our citizens. casis fæderis." and free to be decided according to circumstances."

Sir, what sort of acknowledgment did she make? Sir, the French Government did not exact from But, sir, you will find in the ninth volume of | I suppose no member of the French Ministry ever us the fulfilment of the guarantee, and if she never

Jefferson's works that this very question became went io the absurd extreme of declaring that, out of called on us to do so, pray tell me how there could a subject of Cabinet consultation. I read the fol- the many cases of seizure and capture of our vessels be any claim for indemnity for a violation of that lowing extract:

and goods, not one could be found that created an treaty? Yet, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Dis. “Does the treaty with France leave ne free to prohibit obligation to make compensation. But was any NEY) says, that France did demand iis execution, her from arining vessels in our ports? Thomas Jefferson, investigation ever made? Was there an admitted and did claim indemnity for that guarantee, and he

Ilamilton, Knox, and Raudolph-upanimous--it does. As
the treaty obliges us to prohibit the enemies of France from

liability as to any one of these unsatisfied claims? declares that some American politicians resorted arming in our ports, and leaves us free to prohibit France,

Did she ever promise to make payment in any par. to miserable subterfuges to avoid our honest obli- do noi the laws of neutrality oblige us to prohibit her? ticular case?' Had she made any such promise, gations to France by insisting that she had comSame persons answer they do."

when, in 1797, our Ministers reported to the Secmenced the war with England, and that our guar. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Disney) says retary of State: “Weare sorry to inform you that antee could only be invoked in a defensive and not that we gave just cause of offense to France by the present disposition of the Government of this in an offensive war. Sir, the gentleman is mista- denying privileges to her that we granted by the country appears to be as unfriendly towards ours ken. It would have been as idle then as now, to Jay treaty to England, in allowing her to take as ever, and that we have very little prospect of inquire whether we were bound to guaranty the French goods out of American ships, while France | succeeding in our mission!” Had she made any French islands in an offensive as well as a de- was forbidden to take British goods out of our such promise, when, as late as 1798, only about fensive war. I care not what may have been the vessels. Now, sir, the plain answer to this is, that three months before we found it necessary to abtrue construction of the treaty. I care not what our treaty with France had established the prin- | rogate all our treaties with her, Talleyrand, in an opinions may have been expressed upon the sub- | ciple that free ships should make free goods. This interview with our Ministers, observed that “we ject. The point did not arise, and it never became | principle was no part of the general law of nations, had claims on the French Government for propnecessary to resort to any subterfuge.

Whether and was only binding upon those nations who, by lerty taken from American citizens; some of these we would have been bound or not, if France had treaty, should agree to it. We never had any such claims were probably just?Some of these claims called on us for aid, the simple fact is, she never treaty with England, and of course her right to were probably just! Å very definite and important asked it, but expressly disclaimed it.

take the property of her enemy when found in acknowledgment to be sure! No, sir; they never Well, sir, was it for any violation of the treaty neutral boutoms, was regulated by the law of did promise to pay these claims. Our Ministers of amity and commerce that a claim for indemnity notions only. It was not a privilege granted to never could extort any such promise from them. arose? Who will rise upon this floor and say that England by the Jay treaty, as the gentleman sup

Even in the final negotiation, when the French this treaty was viulated by Washington?' The poses, but belonged to her by the general law of Ministers were pressed and constrained to make gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Disney) insisted yes- | nations, before that treaty was made. Its recog- some reply, they boldly declared thai they were terday that this treaty allowed France exclusively nition there added nothing to her rights. The determined not to assume the payment of indemnito arm and fit out her vessels of war in our poris, United States desired to substitute the principle ties, because they were altogether unable to pay and to sell the prizes she might take from her en- that free ships make free goods, but England them; and our negoliators twice communicated to emy; and he not only declares that these stipula- always preferred to adhere to the general doctrine their own Government the declaration made by tions of the treaty were violated by us, but he looks of international law upon that subject. She steadily the French Ministers, that they would not enter with pain upon this chapter of our history. Sir, acred upon it and the French Government com- into an investigation because they did not mean to I challenge the citation of a single American states- plained of us for allowing it, long before the ratifi- | acknowledge the claims, as they had not the means man, of ihat day, either of the Republican or of | Cation of the Jay trealy. As early as 1793, Mr.

to pay them. the Federal school of politics, who did not unite in Jefferson had occasion to reply to some of these

Mr. BAYLY. Where is the evidence of that? the denial of the French pretensions on these sub- unreasonable complaints of the French Minister. Mr. MILLSON. Here it is. Our Ministers jects. No such right was granted to France by the Writing to Mr. Genet, he says:

say, September 12, 1800: creaty, either exclusively, or in common with other

“ I believe it cannot be doubird but that, by the general “ They now openly avowed that their real object was to nations. To have permitted it to her would have law of nations, the goods of a friend found in the vessel of avoid, by every ineans, any engagement to pay indemnities, been a gross violation of our neutrality: France an enemy are free, and the goods of an enemy found in giving, as one reason, the utter ivability of France to pay, in complained of the denial of these privileges, but

the vessel of a friend, are lawful prize. Upon this prin- the situation in which she would be left by the present

ciple, I presume, the British armed vessels have taken the rather to avoid accounting with us for her numer- property of French citizens found in our vessels, in the ous depredations on our commerce, by trumping cases above mentioned, and I confess I should be at a loss Again, on the 4th October, 1800, they say: up complaints with which to meet ours, than be- on what principle to reclaim it."

“ In short, they thought proper to add, what was quite cause there was anything in the treaty that could If this doctrine of the law of nations, in some unnecessary, that their real ohject was to avoid indemnities, make them even plausible. It is true that for a time cases worked against France, in others it oper

and that it was not in the power of France to pay then." she was allowed to dispose of some of her prizes | ated in her favor; for she was entitled to make Sir, I trust I have succeeded in showing that in our ports, but only as a matter of grace and prize of our goods when found in English bottoms. France never had any valid claims for indemnity


330 CONG....20 Sess.

French Spoliations~Mr. Millson.

Ho. of Reps.

[ocr errors]

of ratifications."

against the United States resulting from the viola- mated."

I will read a brief extract from these ered the avowed objects of the French Government, tion of any of our treaties with her, and that if we instructions. “ The following points are to be their Ministers then “ made an entire departure desisted ai last from all further efforts to obtain sat- considered ultimated”-Omilling all but the sec- from the principles upon which the negotiation isfaction for the claims of our citizens, it was from ond and third, I quote the language of these two: had proceeded for some time," and openly

avowed a conviction that such efforts would be fruitless, "2. That the treaties and consular conventions declared that their real object was to avoid indemnities, and and not from any anxiety to be relieved from her to be no longer obligatory, by act of Congress, be not, in that it was not in the power of France to pay empty pretensions. But it is said that, by the con. whole or in part, revived by the new treaty, but that all

them. the engagements to which the United States are to become vention of 1800, we were discharged from the parties, be specified in the new treaty.

Here, sir, seemed to be the end of the negotiaguarantee in the treaty of alliance, and that this "3. That no guarantee of the whole or any part of the tion. What more could our Ministers do? Their was the valuable consideration for which we re

dominions of France be stipulated, nor any engagement arguments had been unavailing. Their remon

mnade in the nature of an alliance." nounced the just claims of our citizens, and secured

strances had been disregarded. Were hostilities a national benefit at their expense. Before we can The envoys were instructed, also, to use every to be renewed? That was a grave question, and estimate the force of this argument, it will be

effort to obtain indemnities for spoliations, and to gravely did they consider it. More blood might necessary to advert to the previous relations existe prosecute the negotiation with the utmost possible

be spilt, more treasure wasted, but what, at last, ing between the two countries.

diligence. They were told they must be com- would be the good? They concluded to make a I have already stated that, in 1798, the French menced within twenty days after their arrival, temporary arrangement. There were more than Government not only refused to receive our Minis- || and it was expected they would return home in forty ships and cargoes, many of which, they ters and treat with ihem upon the objects of their less than six months. But, sir, the most vexa

said, were of great value, not yet definitively conmission, but ignominiously compelled two of them tious delays occurred. Every obstacle was inter- demned. These, at least, might be saved. They to quit her territory, while a discrimination not less posed, and it was soon evident the same course of therefore concluded the treaty of 1800, the second insulting was made in favor of the other. Our procrastination would be followed that had been article of which was in these words: Government had hardly received intelligence of adopted towards their predecessors. The French

“ The Ministers Plenipotentiary of the two parties not these proceedings, before the most prompt and Government repeated their old complaints, and being able to agree at present respecting the treaty of alvigorous measures were taken to vindicate ihe va. renewed their demands for indemnity, for the pur- liance of 6th February, 1778, the treaty of amity and comtional independence. In less than three weeks from pose of setting them off against our claims. They inerce of the same date, and the convention of 14th No

vember, 1788, nor upon the indemnities mutually due or the reception of this intelligence, the law abroga- | complained, too, of the abrogation of the treaties

claimed; the parties will negotiate further on these subjects ting all our treaties with France, had passed both by Congress, and denied that one party could dis- at a convenient time, and unul they may have agreed upon Houses of Congress, and been approved by the

solve them without the consent of the other. It these points, the said treaties and convention shall have no President. Various measures of a hostile char- was answered, that their repeated infraction by

operation, and the relations of the two countries shall be acter were adopted in quick succession. I need France authorized the United States to declare they

regulated as follows." not describe them particularly, as my friend from should be no longer binding upon them. They

This article was expunged by the Senate of the South Carolina (Mr. Orr) has just done so. said it would be degrading to pay indemnities, and

United States, and the following was added: They prohibited all intercourse with France; they submit, also, to be deprived of ihe benefits of the "It is agreed that the present convention shall be in force

for the term of eight years from the time of the exchange authorized the capture of all French armed vessels treaties. Their proposition was a stipulation for wherever found, and their condemnation as law. || mutual indemnities and a revival of the treaties. ful prize; they provided for raising an army, This was, of course, instantly rejected. At a sub

In this form the treaty was ratified. It was equipping a navy, and for placing the country in sequent period our Ministers proposed that, if also ratified by the French Government with the

declaration that "the Government of the French a complete state of defense.” Actions were fought, France would pay the indemnities due on her part, prisoners were taken; but gentlemen say all inis they would make a similar agreement, provided it Republic consents to accept, ratify, and confirm did not amount to war. They are aware that if should be limited to the claims of individuals; and the above convention, with the addition that the it was war, it annulled all' our treaties with they would also consent to a revival of the treaties,

Convention shall be in force for the space of eight France, and she was from that moment released on condition that the mutual guarantee should only years, and with the retrenchment of the second from any obligation to pay our claims against her. bind France, when the United States were al

article, provided that, by this retrenchment, the Therefore, they deny that this condition of things tacked, to furnish one million of francs, in pro

two States renounce the respective pretensions amounted to anything more than hostilities, with-visions, and should bind the United States to sup- which are the object of the said article." out war.

ply the same amount when France was attacked. On being again sent to the Senate, that body Now, sir, I do not think it at all necessary for By this proposition, too, either party was to be at

simply declared that they considered the treaty the purposes of the argument, to show that war did liberty to exonerate itself wholly from its obliga- | fully ratified. really exist. But it seems to me that gentlemen tions under the guarantec, by paying to the other,

Now, sir, it is upon this state of facts the asencounter formidable difficulties in their efforts to within seven years, five millions of francs--less

sertion is founded, that the United States bartered show it did not. At the renewal of negotiations in than $1,000,000.

the claims of their citizens for valuable privileges 1800, the French Ministers, while they maintained This, sir, is doubtless the proposition referred

to themselves, in receiving exemption from what that France had not accepted the war, and had not to by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Disney] is called a burdensome guarantee. It is now usual in that way assented to the abrogation of the when he said that the United States offered to pay

to speak of it as a burdensome guarantee. But treaties, yet insisted that the hostile acts author. || eight millions of francs to be released from the was it less burdensome to France? Were not the ized and committed by the United States, " were guarantee... The supposed offer of eight millions, obligations reciprocal? If we were bound to guarnothing less than war," and that “ a new treaty by our Ministers, was only a recital ly them antee the French possessions in America, was not between France and the United States should be of their understanding of a previous offer of the France equally bound to guarantee our possessions, preceded by a treaty of peace. Our Ministers

French Government. The offer made on cur part

and our “ liberty, sovereignty, and independ. could only reply, on this head, that the state of was expressly connected with the proposition ihat

ence" besides? Yet this guarantee is constantly things from which they desired to return, was one France should pay the indemnities. Could we

spoken of as if it imposed obligations upon the dificult to name and more difficult to account have gotten from her the seventy-five, and per.

United States alone. Why, sir, at the time it was If the state in which the country was haps a hundred millions of francs, that she was

made it was deemed rather a favor than a burden placed by the legislation of 1798, was not one of liable for, it would have been an excellent bargain

to us; and, considering the relative power of the war, Judge Marshall, who is said to have favored to allow her five millions for the guarantee. The two nations, we might hope to secure at least as these claims, must have been unusually careless privilege, too, was to be reciprocal. When she

much advantage from it as France ever could. in his phraseology, when he said, in his Life of desired to be released from the guarantee, she was But had we not already been released from this Washington, “General Washington did not live to pay us as much as we were to pay her, if we

guarantee? Had we not abrogated all our treato witness the restoration of peace.”

should want to be released.

ties with France, and had any of them ever been But I care not how this may be. The French The reply of the French Ministers on this head revived ? Who shall question the right of a nation Government expressed a desire to conciliate the was to the effect that the guarantee should be con- to pronounce treaties previously violated by the United States, and to restore the good understand- verted into a promise of succor to the amount of other contracting party, no longer obligatory ing between the two Republics. The Government two millions, but not redeemable except for ten

upon herself? Between nations there is no comand people of the United States were willing, on

millions. They, however, still evaded the prop

mon arbiter, and each must judge for itself as to their part, to reëstablish friendly relations; and osition as to indemnities, and continued to set up the obligations of their public compacts. A difthree new envoys were appoinied, who were, their own claims. The American Ministers re

ference of opinion between them as to the proprihowever, not to embark for Europe until they had jected these terms, and particularly objected to

ety of the abrogation may, to be sure, lead to received from the Executive Directory “direct ihe augmentation of the sums proposed to extin

war; but the act of abrogation is not the less valid. and unequivocal assurances, signified by their Sec- guish the right of France under the mutual guar- | Especially, sir, is it not permitted to the citizens retary of Foreign Relations," that they would be antee. But after deliberating a few days, they

or subjects of any Power to question its validity. received in character and admitted to an audience. | determined to advance still closer to the French They are bound by the act, whether other Powers The President was thus punctilious as to these con

offer. They say in their report:

may choose to acquiesce or not. Mr. Jefferson's ditions, because he said the honor of the country “ They offered an unlimited recognition of the former opinion upon this subject may be inferred from “ dictated" them, and our “moderation" had treaties, ihough accompanied with a provision to extinguish his letter to Mr. Madison, in which he says:

such privileges claimed under them as were detrimental to given us a “right to prescribe" them. The re

“I was glad, in yesterday's discussion, to hear it admitted the United States by a pecuniary equivalent, to be made out

on all hands, that the laws of the United States subsequent quired assurances were given, and the envoys of the indemnities which should be awarded to American

to a treaty, control its operation, and that the Legislature went on their mission.

citizens. A compensation which, though it might have

is the only power which can control a treaty. Both points You will remember, sir, that, at this time, all our canceled but a small portion of the indemnities, was never.

are sound beyond doubt.”

theless a liberal one for privileges, which the French Gov. trealies with France had, by a solemn act of Conernment had often admitted to be of litile use to France,

But it has been argued, that though a nation gress, been abrogated. The envoys were ex. under the construction which the American Government possess the right to absolve itself wholly from pressly instructed not to consent to their revival. had given to the trcaties."

ireaties previously violated by the other party, This point, indeed, was declared to be “ulti- They go on to say, that though this offer cove yet she is accountable to that party for its improper


330 CONG....20 Sess.

Pacific Railroad-Mr. McDougall.

Ho. of Reps.



exercise; and that the United States relinquished true relation to the subject now under considera- mounted troops down the Gila; he succeeded in to France the claims of our citizens in order to tion.

following the Gila, but encountered serious ob. avoid the effects of her resentment. Yes, it is The gentleman from Missouri commences his stacles, even to the passage of his mules and even said we bought our peace with France. Sir, | discourse by informing this committee that he horses. Leroux undertook to guide Lieutenant is there the least ground or excuse for such an has, for a long time, earnestly desired to withdraw Colonel Cooke with the Mormon battalion and idea? We have seen the United States adopting this subject from this forum-a forum disturbed the wagon train, by a wagon road into California. the most vigorous measures to compel justice from and agitated by political controversies, and by To find this wagon road Colonel Cooke, with is France. Complaints are made; envoys are sent personal and local considerations.

command, was forced south through what was out; creaties are abrogated; hostilities are com- I would like to inquire of the gentleman from then a part of Mexico; and over the same line of menced. We attack and capture her ships-of- | Missouri what, in his opinion, constitutes a long road, the survey of which is now olenounced & a war; we spill her blood; we make prisoners of her period of time. I hold in my hand a letter wriuen fraudulent speculation on the part of certain micitizens. All this is done without provoking her by that gentleman, or at least his name is appended cers of the Army and the Administration. to war; and yet, after she has submitted to these to it, dated March 4, 1853. Is the time since then know that, until very recently, it has been genaggressions, and entreated us to recede from our a long period, in the estimation of the gentleman erally supposed at the West, that this line was the hostile attitude, we suddenly become so timorous of thirty years' experience in senatorial legisla- | only practicable southern line to the Pacific, and as to be terribly frightened, lest our simple abro- cion? This letter is in the form of an address to thai, perhaps, the only route for a railroad into gation of the treaty may offend her, and we offer his constituents, on the subject of a railway to California, was south of the Gila. Since the opensome twelve or fifteen millions of dollars to buy the Pacific. I will read a few extracts from this | ing of the road by Colonel Cooke, the entire emi. off an expected war upon us! And that, too, letter:

gration from the south and southwest have passed when the highest price set upon the guarantee by “I hold that it should be made by the United States, so

over this road; they have passed it in summer and France herself was less than two millions! The far as th: ir territory exlnds, (which would be almost the

winter; the features and facilities of the country cause must be a weak one that needs such argu- whole distance on the central route,) leaving the two ends have become well understood, and now for some

wbere it would go through Suates to the operation of State years it has been known to present no serious

laws and State authority." *** “My idea is, that the No, sir; the Government of the United States road should be built by ihe United States, by ihe creation

physical obstacles to the construction of a railroad. received no consideration from France for any of a stock hypothecated upon the publi land-, and paya

Therefore, when it was proposed to inquire into surrender of our claims. It had no inducement ble, at a fixed period, at the Federal Treasury, and ibatan the practicability of a railroad to the Pacific, it to do so. It is a strained interpretation of the

adequate force should be put upon it to do the work at became important for the Government to inqu re motives and objects of our Government to sup

into, and examine, the southern route, and it also pose it had. The Senate struck out the second This much, sir, is all I have to say as to the became an important measure-assuming that article, doubtless, from an idea that France might | long desire of the gentleman to withdraw this sub there was no oiher practicable route-lo acquire found upon it a pretension that it contained an ject from the forum of the Federal Congress. that country from Mexico. implied admission of her having valid demands

I have noticed the opening of the gentleman's Now, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Misupon us. Perhaps, too, they were unwilling that

discourse addressed to the committee. I will now souri has great objections to the policy of approfurther efforts-by this time ascertained to be refer to his conclusion. As in the discourse itself priating the public lands in aid of railroad enterhopeless-should be made to induce France to there is nothing consecutive, I see no occasion to prises. His language amounts to a denunciation grant the indemnities so obstinately denied, and treat it consecutively.

of the policy in the most unmeasured terms. It were, therefore, averse to holding out such an The gentleman says that the northern road pro- would seem somewhat strange, however, to the expectation. But suppose the Government had posed by this bull is a British ruad, a Canada committee if I should state to them, and should expressly resolved to abandon all further exertions road, a hyperborean road, an impracticable road; prove to them, that the gentleman has always on behalf of the claimants; suppose it had noti- that it has been projected for entirely speculauveheretofore been in favor of the most extravagant fied France of its purpose to discontinue the pros- purposes; and that inis British, hyperborean, im- appropriations of lands for such purposes; that ecution ;-would even that have made her liable proclicable speculation is the offspring of the no other man in the Union, in or out of Congress, to pay them? Undoubledly not. A nation will present Administration. The gentleman is mis- has made a record of propositions of this kind, assist its citizens to obtain reuress from foreign

Laken. I will inform this committee that the That will at all compare, in point of extravagance, Powers, but it is not bound to go further than it

present Administration is in no respects charge- with those made by the gentleman from Missouri. may deem expedient. It will make all proper

able with the paternity of this monster off-pring. The gentleman introduced into the Senate iwo difefforts to obtain satisfaction for injuries done

Iis paternity is chargeable upon no other person ferenı bills for the construction of a railroad to the them; but if it fails to do so, it is under no obliga

than the gentleman from Missouri i ow before me. Parific. His first bill proposed to appropriate one tion to pay the claim itself. Dispuies between

The gentieman from Missouri, as long ago as hundred solid miles of land along the whole line nations are not to be perpetual. There is a time 1845, in the first proposition made by him for a through to the Pacific. Not alternate sections, when there must be an end of strife. The Giv. rallrvad to the Pacific, suggested that it should be mind, but one hundred miles in a continuous tract. ernment must judge of this for itself; and the good run from the great falls of the Missouri to the The gentleman talks about the grant proposed by of the whole, not the passions or interests of a

Columbia river-the same line recently surveyed this bill as containing more land than would be few, must be the controlling consideration. by Governor Stevens. The exact line of what has required for a State. His proposal 10 appropriate I do not see, then, upon what principle we can

now become a British and hyperborean route. one hundred miles in breadth, along two thousand regard these claims as debts due by ihe United

Mr. BENTON. That was before the acquisi- miles of roail, would furnish the territory for many Slates. If they were, we would, I admit, be tion of California.

States. But he not only proposed to set apart and bound to recognize the insurance companies as

Mr. McDOUGALL. Yes, it was; but it was appropriate the hundred solid miles of land, but lawful holders of the original demands, and make

as much a British road then as it is now; as much also to appropriate to the scheme all the revenues equal payment to them as to the others. But if | hyperborean, and as impracticable. The gentle of the Federal Government collected in the Terthis whole bill proceeds, as I conceive it does,

man then described it as an excellent route, as a ritories of California and Oregon. upon the idea of a dispensation of gratuitous

pracuicable and convenient route, although we had The gentleman's next bill provided for the aprelief to actual sufferers Prom French spoliations, ihen but few of our people on the shores of the propriation of seventy-five per centum of the prowe have a right to select the objects of our bounty,

Pacific He sugvesied a railroad by this route, ceeds of all the public lands lying west of the and exclude those who can, in no just sense, be

as a means whereby we could coinmand the rich Mississippi, and fifty per cent. of the proceeds of classed among the sufferers. Unless this is done, commerce of the Orient; and indulging in a strain the balance of the public lands, in aid of this great the bill will be almost worthless to the private

of oriental eloquence, he gorgeously portrayed, as work. It seems to me that the gentleman from claimants.

its results, a line of cities along the banks of the Missouri cannot very reasonably assume now, great father of waters, rivaling, in their wealth and that there is anything vicious in this measure, be

splendor, Palmyra of the desert, Tyre, and Car- cause it proposes to dispose of what is, comparaPACIFIC RAILROAD. thage, and Venice.

tively, but a small part of the public domain, for I say, then, sir, this projected road is no off.

the same purpose. SPEECH OF HON.J. A. MCDOUGALL, spring of this Administration. If for its paternity But, sir, it may be supposed by some, that

either honor or execration is due, the debt is pay- while the gentleman from Missouri was in favor OF CALIFORNIA, able to the honorable gentleman himself.

of a direct appropriation of the public domain, or IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

And now as to the southern route. This, the its proceeds; while he was in favor of a direct January 16, 1855.

gentleman in sjats, is another offspring of the Ad- construction of the road by the Government, with The House being in the Committee of the Whole

ministration; and here, too, the gentleman is mis- the property and money of the Government, yet on the state of the Union, and Mr. Benton having

taken. Let me state the facts: During the late that he was consistently opposed to the policy of concluded his remarks

war with Mexico it became necessary to send granting alternate sections of the public lands,

a body of troops to New Mexico. This com. upon special grounds. I ask the attention of the Mr. MCDOUGALL said:

mand, under General Kearny, consisted in part commirree, and of the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. CHAIRMAN: I entertain for the venerable of mounted men, and in part of infantry, with a while I state that in the debate on the bill to grant gentleman from Missouri great respect-great large baggage train. They set out from Fort lands to the State of Mlinois, to aid in the construcrespect as a feature in our history; bui as a mem- Leavenworth, on the frontier of Missouri, en route tion of the Illinois Central railroad, the gentle. ber of this body, upon this floor, acting, and seek. for the city of San Francisco. They took the man from Missouri brasted that he was one of ing to influence action on a great public question, route through New Mexico as the most practica the fathers of this very policy. On that occasion, I cannot regard him as entitled to any greater or ble. Al Santa Fé they endeavored to find guides, he congratulated himself that he had been long higher deference or consideration than any one of and to ascertain the best route across into Cal- || enough in the Senate to have voted for the original the honorable gentlemen before me, and I shall, 1 ifornia, and with this object remained in New grani to Illinois, for the purpose of aiding the therefore, undertake to discuss freely the gentle- Mexico for some time. After full inquiry, General construction of a canal from lake Michigan to the man’s présent position, and to exhibit fully his ll Kearny undertook as an experiment to take the ll Illinois river. He stated that, without that aid, 330 CONG....20 Sess.

Pacific Railroad-Mr. McDougall.

Ho. or Reps.

the work would hardly have been undertaken, upon his own broad shoulders he will bear the his conclusion could be at all affected by the relamuch less accomplished. He pointed out the pro- nighiy burden. He will have no aid from the tion of the Government to the contract, or the digious results of that grant, and stated that, if no Federal Government; all he asks 18 to be let alone, interest the Government might have, either in its other advantageous results had followed the grant, to be allowed to pass over the public, breach or performance. that the vast facilities afforded to our internal nay. withoui being sued as a trespasser. It is a matter I will ask the gentleman: Suppose that when this igation well compensated us for parting with some of sincere and earnest regret with me that I Congress granted to the State of Illinois land to acres, over which this Government then wielded a cannot think bis capacity al all equal to his and in the construction of the Illinois and Michi. barren scepler. On the sanie occasion, the gentle | sublime anıbilion.

gan canal, there had been introduced into the grant man stated that he had voted to give nearly half a But, Mr. Chairman, what I most apprehend, a stipulation, or condition, providing that the State million of acres to the State of Alabama, to aid in what I most fear, is, that the gen.lenian 18 still of Illinois should forfeit the land so granted, or its the construction of a canal around the Muscle merely talking about a railroad tu lhe Pacific; that equivalent, in case she should fail to construct the Shoals; and that, although the work had not been he has never heretofore, and that he does not now, work within a time fixed. Would such a stipu. executed, he did not consider the appropriation mean earnestly to act. I will slate my reasons: lation have made the work a Government work? lost; that there had been great advantages gained || The gentleman talks about the promises of the solid Suppose again, that, instead of the State of Illinois, by the conveyance of the land out of the dead men of Boston, and solid men elsewhere. Now, if | the offer had been made to individuals, or a corhands of the Government into the hands of india promises were money; if promises were grading, | poration, and to secure fair competition, the providual citizens, who would culuvale it, and render superstructure, or a road, they might amount to posal was to be advertised, and competent parties it subservient to the wealth and prosperity of the something Bui lam a little surprised that this gen- had come in and accepted the proposal, and concountry. That he did not consider any of these ileman should make promises the premises for so tracted accordingly, will he contend that such an grants unprofitable; but that, in his opinion, a vasi a conclusion. I have always understood the advertisement and contract would make the work great public object was gained by the transfer of gentleman had a special aversion to promises; ! a Government work? By a Government work the public lands from those by whom they were have even understood that he would not take a bank || is meant Government proprietorship in a work. not cultivated to those by whom they were made note for a dollar; and I never supposed that after Neither the advertisement or contract suggested productive.

having, from his want of faith in promises, won the involves any idea of proprietorship on the part of The gentleman stated that he should vote for sobriquet of Old Bullion, he would promise to buiid the Government; it would devolve upon the Govthe pending railroad grant with great pleasure, and a railroad to the Pacific on promises He has ernment neither the construction, ownership, or that he hoped from it similar beneficial results to promises of the solid men of the East-promises 10 control of the work. those effected by the grant in favor of the Illinois do what? To build a road to the Pacific? By no So far as this bill is concerned, it is a sufficient and Michigan canal. The gentleman, then, is not means. They may have informed him that, if the answer to all such points to show that this bill opposed to the appropriation of the public domain country was as beautiful, and as pracucable, and involves only the exerciee of certain specific powfor purposes such as are aimed at by this bill, the enterprise as productive, as he described, ers by Congress: neither is he opposed to the policy of granting they would favor it, and subscribe stock towards First—The power to grant lands, by alternate alternate sections to Slates or individual ciuzens, ils construction. Information like this has not sections, in aid of a railroad enterprise. in aid of enterprises such as the one now proposed even the weight of a promise. As yet no company Second—The power to contract for transportaHe has been the acknowledged advocale, cham- bas been organized, no route has been selected, tion for Government purposes. pion, and father of this policy. I ask, sir, how, and I do not, and cannot, believe that the gentle- Third–The power to stipulate with the grantees or why, has the genıleman just now, at this mo- man has any taith in suggestions or assurances so and contracting parties, that they will construct a ment, changed his position and his front upon this vague and indefinite as those of which he speaks road in a certain time, and in a certain manner, whole question ?

must necessarily be. But a short time since he under the penalty of forfeiture of the property There is another singular and significant feature thought the work too great for private enterprise. and rights secured to them by the bill, and also in the history of the gentleman's relations to the He thought the road should be constructed, and the further forfeiture of such further security as Pacific railroad. As early as 1845 he advocated should be owned by the Government; that it || they agree to give, as an assurance that they, the construction of a railroad to the Pacific, but should be an Appian way, a highway for nations, will undertake and complete the work in good he then proposed no action.

a highway as free as our rivers; and I say again, | faith; or, in other words, the power to stipulate In 1849 he introduced his first bill, one of the and I say to the gentleman from Missouri, I have for security sufficient to protect the Government bills to which I have already alluded. Upon the no faith in his promises, and I do not believe he has and its property from the schemes of irresponintroduction of this bill, he delivered one of his any faith in them. When the gentleman last ap- sible speculators. oriental discourses, a discourse perfect in its rhet- || pealed to the Federal Government, as the only pow. Now, sir, I do not understand the power to conoric, gorgeous in its descriptions, and overflowing er adequate to this great enterprise, private railroad tract for transportation to be questioned. I do not with historical illustrations. I have read the enterprises were prosperous. Now, at this mo- understand the power to stipulate conditions of speech, read it several times, not with curiosity | ment, when all individual enterprises of this kind forfeiture to be questioned; but as a portion of the merely, but with delight, at the glowing, gorgeous are under a cloud, when every railroad capitalist, road may be forfeited to the Government, the genpicture he presented. From such a speech, one and every railroad interest, is laboring under the tleman from Maryland thinks that the portion so would ordinarily look for some result, or at least greatest embarrassment, he discovers suddenly, forfeited would become a Government road, and, some action; and it seemed strange to me that, and for the first time, that private individual capital | therefore, an unconstitutional road. He does not upon an examination of the record, I could not is altogether equal to the undertaking. What, sir, || insist that it will be necessarily an unconstitutional find that the gentleman had ever called up the bill does this change of position and opinion mean? or road; for if, after forfeiture, it should be run and he had introduced It seemed strange to me that, rather, what has caused this change in the gentle- used for Government and public purposes alone, after exhausting so much labor and so much elo- man's tactics? Why is the gentleman from Mis- then it would be a constitutional road; but if, after quence upon his measure, he should not have || souri so much disposed, just at this moment, to play forfeiture, it should be run and used for private and asked a vole upon it; but permitted it to lie dead the Hercules ? Can it be that his proposition, his commercial purposes, then it would be an unconupon the table of the Senate.

pilgrimages, and his discourses, since the com- stitutional road. I have heard of unconstitutional 'In 1850 the gentleman from Missouri intro- mencement of the present session, are aimed at the laws, but never of unconstitutional roads before. duced his second Pacific railroad bill. He intro. assembled wisdom of bis State, now in council at But if the gentleman means thus to test the conduced his bill, made another of his oriental || Jefferson City, rather than at overcoming the plaing | stitutionality of the bill now pending, I confess it speeches, sent his speech to the country, and and mountains that separate us from the Pacific? | is a leat the strangest that I have met with in my again let the bill lie dead without moving towards I can conceive of no other satisfactory solution of experience. He asserts that the constitutionality its resurrection. On the 4th of March, 1853, he his strang. and inconsistent course upon the sub- of an exertion of power by this Congress, is to be sent his address to the people of Missouri, extracts | ject under consideration.

determined by what may be the policy or legislafrom which I have read to you. It is now near On yesterday evening the gentleman from Mary- tion of the Government years to come; that the the 4th of March, 1855 One session of Con- land, (Mr. Hamilton,) a gentleman of altogether constitutionality of the pending bill is to be determgress has expired, and another has nearly passed, a different school from the gentleman from Mis- || ined by the uses to which the road shall be put and no one here has heard of any corresponding | souri, presented to the committee his views in | after it may have become forfeited to the Govern. proposition from the gentleman from Missouri. opposition to the pending bill. He frankly avowed ment.

Instead of finding him, in his , fficial position, his opposition to all grants of land, and to all Mr. HAMILTON, (interrupting.) The gentleurging upon Congress any one of the measures Government aid, to railroads. He regarded all man misinterprets my remarka. I said its constihe has proposed, we find him, within the last | such acts on the part of the Government as an- tutionality depended upon its object. If it were month or two, making pilgrimages and speeches constitutional. I shall endeavor briefly to respond to be used as a necessary and proper instrument, in the North and East, and in his speeches repu- to some of the points made by him; and I will say to execute an enumerated power in the Constitudiating the idea of Government aid in the con. here, that, however lightly I may regard the sub- || tion, then it would be constitutional, otherwise struction of the road to the Pacific. The gentle- stance of his argument, I will accord to him the not. man has made speeches in the North and East, as credit of sincerity. The gentleman from Mary- Mr. McDOUGALL. The gentleman said, if, he has made speeches in Washington I would | land sets out by assuming, that under the pro- in case of forfeiture, it was to be used for Govlike to ask of the gentleman, does he expect | visions of this bill, a road to the Pacific must be ernment purposes, he could see no objection to speeches to build the road? But he says he has a Government road. This assumption he first the bill; but if it was to be used for private pur• twenty of the solid men of Bosion at his back; bases upon the clauses in the bill authorizing the poses it was altogether unconstitutional. Now, that he can build it by private enterprise alone; | Secretary of War to advertise for proposals, and sir, the object contemplated in case of the forfeiture that he has raised millions—has it, has it in his to contract for the construction of the road. If of this road, is no object at all. No such thing pocket; has the railroad in his pocket-a ponder. the Secretary of War is to advertise and contract as a forfeiture is contemplated. Forfeiture is not ous burden for one man to carry, but it seems not for the construction of the road, he concludes it an object of this bill, neither is any contingency even to stoop his back. He will build the railroad must necessarily be a Government road. He dependent upon such forfeiture an object in the himself, alone he will do it; another Hercules, Il does not seem to consider that the correctness of Il legislation now proposed. If, by accident or

« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »