amen, and made the sailor in his ship as safe
as the farmer in his dwelling, he signed the Treaty which
secured our boundary and our fisheries as they had been secured
by his father.* John Quincy Adams had struck, by the direction
of his father, in 1815, a seal which he gave to his son, with
the injunction to give it to his, bearing the motto, "Piscemur,
venemur, ut olim,"--We keep our hunting grounds and our fishing
grounds as of old. I doubt if three such achievements, by
three successive generations, can be found in the annals of
any other family however illustrious.

[Footnote]
* This story is told more fully at page 147. It seems appropriate
in both places.
[End of Footnote]

The $15,500,000 was promptly paid. Then came the question
what to do with it. There was no doubt anywhere, that the
owners of vessels or cargoes that had been captured or destroyed
by the cruisers for whose departure from British ports Great
Britain was in fault, were entitled to be paid. That, however,
would not consume the fund. The fund had been paid in gold
coin by Great Britain, September 9, 1873, and had been covered
into the Treasury the same day. This sum was invested in
a registered bond for the amount, of the five per cent. loan
of 1881, dated September 10, 1873, inscribed, "Hamilton Fish,
Secretary of State, in trust. To be held subject to the future
disposition of Congress, etc." This sum largely exceeded what
was necessary to make good the principal of all losses directly
resulting from the damages caused by the insurgent cruisers,
above what had already been reimbursed from insurance. These
claims were popularly termed the "claims for direct damages."

The question what to do with the balance was the subject
of great dispute throughout the country, and of much debate
in both Houses of Congress. Some persons claimed that the
owners directly damaged should receive interest. That would
still leave a large part of the fund undisposed of. It was
insisted that the remainder belonged to the Government for
the benefit of the whole people who had borne the burden and
cost of the war. Others claimed that, as nothing but direct
damages were lawfully assessable, the balance should be paid
back to Great Britain. Still others claimed that the persons
who had suffered indirectly by the loss of voyages, the increased
rates of insurance, and the breaking up of business, were
justly entitled to the money. Still others, perh