The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1852-05-06

which government ordinarily afforded
AVOID a. 10 the antiquity OF these claims !, Is urged
mat they had been just they would have been paid al
The lme and that their antiquity is evidence that they
are uniounded There cases where this objection
has weight, & claimant a %hh ~ III demand a9
ence that be has some sinister object in keeping back
which should weigh against il But IN this case. The
claimants promptly presented and urged their demands at
the time and they have continued constant in their APP
pcaon from that period 10 the present hour. And so
lar from IFS being true that the traces OF truth have be-
from which large of the evidence is de-
rived. was sealed up Tor quarter OF century The
government on whom the obligation OF payment rested
kept the whole history of the negotiation sealed book
in the Department OF State unti brought out and
published on call by the Senate in 1926. The nsruc
uons TO The negotiations, the various propositions that
passed between them recognising the validity oil the de
mands, and the offers Tor adjusting them unk nown
10 the claimants unit, this publication Yet, without this
great accumulation OF eyidsace there was still sufficient
TO satisfy the great OF the time OF their Justice In
their infancy. TO which The honorable IRON Mich
gan has alluded all the strong OF that day for
Congress within sixty days OF the ratification OF the con-
venon, and there almost lie vote in the Senate on
resolution TO take them up for consideration, while they
were before select committee which had not yet made
its reports and the opposition to the resolution urged
on the ground that ii would prejudice the claims by pre-
mature action. The delay OF action for so long time
has been the result OF seeming necessity. We had
debt upon us OF nearly eighty millions OF dollars, for the
payment OF which the whole public pledged
Tbs EMBELLISHMENTS arising from the embargo occurred
IN 1905 and the war OF 1912 increased the public debt TO
such an amount that when time had enabled the govern
nen TO- discharge IT, and be in condition to pay these
claims the cry was raised against them that they were
too old TO be just
The honorable senator has referred to the reports of
committees that have been made from time to time
this subec and is necessary that should
tain his part The first report
made by MIR. Giles, as chairman of select committee OF
the House Of Representative in 1902 setting forth the
facts strongly in favor OF the claim The report
by Mr. Marion in 1907, in which he says that upon
ture consideration the committee :" are Of opinion that
this government BY expunsng the second article Of
convention with France OF the Sd OF September, 1900, be-
came bound TO indemnify the provncalsts for their just
claims which they otherwise would rightfully have had
on the government OF France" Then there are two ad.
verse reports one by Mr. Roberts, in 1873 and the other
by Mr. Forsyth in 1924 both based on the ground that
there was evidence that France recognised the
justice OF the claims, or intended TO pay them The
port Of Mr. Russell, which is cited by the honorable SEN
ato is confined to the Of single vessel the Tri-
umph, and the decision is mainly placed grounds not
involving the general question
We have. then. two adverse reports upon the general
question. both denying relief for Of evidence that
the French government had ever admitted the validity of
evidence was slight at that time compared with what
now have. When the history of the negotiation was
given 70 the public disclosing the fac, that France not
only admitted the justice OF the demands, but offered to
submit them with her own claims against the United
States to the adjudication of Independent and impartial
tribunal, it forever exploded the foundation which
these adverse reports Were placed From that day TO
this no committee of either House has made an ad
verse report; while no less than twenty eight reports
nave Oecn mdQe IN tner favor they nave engaged
the attention OF Congress Such extraordinary unanimi
ntion. EieR =
The delay that has arsen nowith standing the avora
Die action OF the committees is not matter of surprise 10
those who acquainted with proceedings
The difficulty is to get action upon subject. where there
are 20 many ways by which minority avoid direct
VOTE In the legislative history OF this question: if my
recollection serves ne the House has been brought to
nnsi vote but once and the Senate three four times
and IN every case the majority has been for the bill Post
ponement. delay, deay-these have prevented action.
Although the aggregate OF the claims is large the indi
vidual interests are generally small; they held by
large number OF persons scattered in distant parts OF The
country. between whom is impossible to secure the
concert of action which could exist il the number OF
claimants was limited.
satisfied. from all the information that has come
TO my knowledge since have turned my attention to this
subject that the nimaion occasionally thrown that
these claims have passed into the hands OF
is without foundation The heirs of those who were
ruined by the spoliaonsihe poor, too much impover-
shsd TO here aud solicit any attend to their
cause-helpless families, and the aged sufferers who yet
live in the hope that justice will at last be done-these
constitute The great mass TO whom you win bring relief
by the passage OF this bill do not know solitary case
OF purchase BY Spectators although would be strange
il there not occasional cases OF the kind Blu,
TO guard against the possibility, the bill prohibits the
payment 70 any assignee OF any greater amount
than be shall have paid and interest thereon. The
consideration that single claim would be paid by the
government without providing Tor the whole and that
the entire public revenues pledged for the paymen,
o. me public debt excluded ndncemen for Spectators 10
have time 10 urge only one further consideration
upon the attention OF the Senate, consistently with
my purpose 10 come 10 a vote to-day. II is con-
sIde1tion that appeals 10 our national honor A por.
ton OF the captures made by the French cruisers
were carried into the ports OF Spain for condemnation
Our government demanded redress and compelled Spain
70 compensate every American citizen whose property
was taken and conhscaed by French cruisers within
Spanish Jurisdiction We secured 10 that class Of sui.
fefers the amount OF S2sf5,609 90 under the Florida
treaty. So wanton did we regard the outrage OF these
sp0hatlons that we enforced satisfaction from third
party Tor pariicpahonb by acquiescence. We said Span
The demands OF these merchants Just they
Undermined, even by you We did this after our gov
eminent had put itself in the place OF France n regard
with what consistency, not TO say decency, could we
make this demand on Span the passive and unnteesed
instrument and then the class OF snerer 10
We had manned the liability Of the principal and recp.
lent Of the plumber, and tell them would not pay them
. farthingl What, sir. enforce on third party de.
mand whose justice refused 10 admit against the prin
clpafl II American vessels captured by the French in
Spanish ports are entitled 70 indemnity wha, princi
pie il that those captured by the French in French ports
have not NJ least equal claim And yet these petit
oners have not received dollar. Is the only gov.
ernrnentthat denies justice TO our citizens ndemnes
Tor similar spoations have been secured from Great
Britain, Denmark. and Naples And IL the subjects OF
any other respectable government the globe stood in
the place Of these petitioners, who citizens
they would have been paid long ago. We would not
dare 10 deny the payment alter enforcing like claims
sPon ohers and meet the epoaches that such injustice
wopld bring down upon from every part OF the civil
ized world lie, this honest debt be paid and the stain
a1eoed. But must pursue this topic furher--hme
VIII not permit Omiiting much that | would like TO
hsve sad, have endeavored to eon6ne myself TO such
points - would answer the argument OF my friend from