The southern press. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1850-1852, 1851-01-25
TIE SOUTHERN PRESS.
Speech OF MI. HUNTER, OF virsinis,

Ikl-W EEkLI, w
WEEKLY, 90
Speech OF Mr. HUNTER, OF Virginia,
On Claims for French Spoliations; delivered IN
The Senate, Monday January 20, 1851.
Mr.. HUNTER said Mr.. President, it is
tedious thing TO speak before any assembly
against foregone conclusion and it is especially
disagreeable upon the subject which has been
80 often and so fully discussed as the one now
under confederation But, however distastcful
the task may be, there are occasions on which
may be ones duty TO excuse it. Such con-
ceive to be my case in the present instance.
OF the Select Committee raised by the Senate
for the special consideration of this csbject I
was the only member opposed to the bill now
before US; and perhaps it may be expected by
those whose opinions in some measure repre-
scented on that occasion that, should give the
argument on the other side, us the chairman of
the cOmmittee--the senator from Connecticut
has already presented his views in favor of the
bill. Indeed, this seems to be one of the cases
in which it is especially appropriate that sena-
tors should rely on their committees to undergo
the labor of Investigating the documents, the
speeches, the reports, and the statements of fact
upon which the merits of the case depend
that each senator should examine them all for
himself
1t will be my object, then, TO give resume
of the argument, aud shall cndeayor to make
it as brief as can. Such presentation of the
case may perhaps be useful, even To those gen-
tlemen who have heretofore examined this qucs-
ton, in refreshing their memories and may be
of some service to those who have never looked
into it at all. But not even these considera,
tons would have induced me to undertake the
vain and fruitless task of opposing this BILL
which fear is predestined to pass If it had not
been for considerations connected with the tinan-
cial view of the question.
It is proposed in this bill to appropriate five
millions OF dollars upon principles which it ia
evident must lead to further and probably
much greater expenditure. If we appropriate
live millions upon the principle that we are liza
BILE for these debts, how can we undertake to
say, as this bill proposes to do, that we will pay
only five millions, and no more Ii is debt
we are bound to pay all that is due. Ii it is
gratuity, think can show not only that we
ought not to make it, but that this, of all times,
is the mostinappropriate for such an experiment
When the Secretary Of the Treasury made
his last annual report, our debt amounted to
sixty-four millions of dollars. Since that time,
The acceptance by Texas of the terms offered by
the United States in relation to her boundary,
has added ten millions more, making seventy
sour millions; and this bill, if it passes, will in
crease our debt to seventy-nine millions. The
debt is to be thus increased at a time when the
Secretary Of the Treasury is proposing to spend
more, by nearly nine hundred thousand dollars.
for the next fiscal year, than he expects to re.
ceivc from all sources whatever; and at a time,
too, when, according to his own expectation, we
are to De cut of from all assistapce from the
public lands for at least fifteen years to come.
Sir, If we go on with expenditures at this
fearful pace, where Is it to end And especi-
ally in such case az this, where we see we are
making no sort of provision to pay the debt
hereafter. The path which nations tread to
bankruptcy, or by which they make SO near al
approach to it as often to shake government.
aud convulse society, is indeed an abyss strewr
with flowers; and the man who would nttemp
10 warn them as to the consequences when il
mid career, should expect to find himself dis
charging but a thankless office. Yet, disagreed
bic as it may be, it is somebody's duty to do it
and perhaps it is nObody's duty more than mine
upon the present occasion.
But may be told that all this is no answer
to the demand for the payment of debt, if it be
justly due. admit if it be justly DUE and il
the persons entitled to it can be certainly ascer.
tained, that we are bound to pay it; but If, as
! wish to show, such debt is not due, and that
the payment of this money would be a mere
gratuity, then it is very proper to consider
whether the treasury is in n condition TO enable
as to make such donations. The question rests
upon the justice Of the demand and that is the
point which now propose TO examine
II is maintained on one side that the demand
is Just, because when We negotiated the conven.
ton of 1900, we gave up the indemnit.es 10
which our citizens were entitled, in order to get
rid Of certain valuable pretensions which In,
French made against us, arising out Of the old
treaty Of alliance and of amity and commerce
made in l77S, and the consular convention of
1918 ;and having thus converted private property
TO public uses, having thus sold out these claims
for valuable consideration, we are bound, it is
said, to remunerate the claimants for private
property which was taken for public use
On the other hand, it is maintained that we
did not exchange them for any valuable prcten-
sons on the part Of the French, inasmuch as
some Of the pretensions Of the French were
never worth much. and the foundation for all of
them was gone in 1900, when this convention
was Observation-Disclosures the treaties on which
they were predaicted had been abrogited, and
y"o''y "o'VS"eeu, t"o years oclore- from winch
1t follows that there was no exchange of the
claims Of our citizens for valuable considera-
ton, because the French had no just preten.ions
against us, and therefore we did not convert pr
vate property to public use, so as to make our
selves responsible for it. 1t is also maintained
that we entered into war, in order to retaate
on the French the injuries that had been com
nitted by them on our commerce: and that
iaving entered into this war for that purpose
and to procure indemnity for the past and secu-
rity for the future, we were absolved at the time
of the convention Of 1900 from the obligation of
further prosecuting those claims; and not only
is it affirmed that we had discharged ourselves
OF all obligation to our citizens to prosecute
them further, but that the French could right
fully plead, as in effect they did plead, this war
in satisfaction of the demand against them; so
that, after the treaty of peace terminated the
war, the indemnites were not valid, either as
against the French or against this Government.
In other words, that Mr.. Murray was right when
he wrote to the Secretary of State after the final
ratification of that treaty, expressing the hope
that the Senate meantto express by their manner