rdered restitution, it being well understood that
the claimant can not have recourse to the United States otherwise than
he might have had to the French Republic, and only in case of the
insufficiency of the captors."

If, as was affirmed on all hands, the convention of 1803 was intended
to close all questions between the Governments of France and the United
States, and 20,000,000 francs were set apart as a sum which might
exceed, but could not fall short of, the debts due by France to the
citizens of the United States, how are we to reconcile the claim now
presented with the estimates made by those who were of the time and
immediately connected with the events, and whose intelligence and
integrity have in no small degree contributed to the character and
prosperity of the country in which we live? Is it rational to assume
that the claimants who now present themselves for indemnity by the
United States represent debts which would have been admitted and paid by
France but for the intervention of the United States? And is it possible
to escape from the effect of the voluminous evidence tending to
establish the fact that France resisted all these claims; that it was
only after long and skillful negotiation that the agents of the United
States obtained the recognition of such of the claims as were provided
for in the conventions of 1800 and 1803? And is it not conclusive
against any pretensions of possible success on the part of the
claimants, if left unaided to make their applications to France, that
the only debts due to American citizens which have been paid by France
are those which were assumed by the United States as part of the
consideration in the purchase of Louisiana?

There is little which is creditable either to the judgment or patriotism
of those of our fellow-citizens who at this day arraign the justice,
the fidelity, or love of country of the men who founded the Republic in
representing them as having bartered away the property of individuals to
escape from public obligations, and then to have withheld from them just
compensation. It has been gratifying to me in tracing the history of
these claims to find that ample evidence exists to refute an accusation
which would impeach the purity, the justice, and the magnanimity of the
illustrious men who guided and controlled the early destinies of the
Republic.

I pass from this review of the history of the subject, and, omitting
many substantial objections to thes