Syracuse University Library
Special Collections Research Center
Gerrit Smith Broadside and Pamphlet Collection

Hon. H.C. Goodwin, M. C. : Peterboro, January 5th, 1855.

Smith, Gerrit, 1797-1874.

Digital Edition.

This digitization project was supported by Regional Bibliographic Databases and Interlibrary Resources Sharing Program funds, awarded by the New York State Library.

Call number: Smith 493

PETERBORO, January 5^th, 1855.

Hon. H. C. GOODWIN, M. C.

DEAR SIR.

I am happy to see, in the proceedings of the House of Representatives, the proposition to take up the Bill for the relief of the sufferers by French spoliations. I am not among these sufferers: and I do not know, that I have a relative among them. Nevertheless, I deeply desire the success of the Bill. Pardon me for asking you, to inquire into the merits of the Bill, if you have not done so already. I confess, that I am all the more free to take this liberty, not only from the fact, that you represent my Congressional District, but from the fact, that you occupy the seat, which the pressure of my far too extensive private business compelled me to resign.

We must remember the condition of our country in 1778, in order to estimate rightly the value to her of the Treaties, which she made with France, in that year. The American cause was then struggling through its darkest period; and, unless help should come, it could never emerge. Help did come - timely and abundant help. Those Treaties brought it. France joined hands with us. Our liberty was achieved: - and the Americans, like the delivered Jews, "had light and gladness and joy and honor."

But the deliverance of our country did not suffice to fulfil all the obligations of those Treaties. We were bound to France, as strongly as France was bound to us. France had served us: and it was, now, our turn to serve her. But to serve her, as the Treaties required us to serve her, could only be at vast expense to ourselves.

France stood faithfully by us, and expended, in our cause, much blood, and some two or three hundred millions of dollars. But when the hour of her necessities came, we did not standby her, as our Treaties required us to do. She had abundant cause to complain of us. But I admit, that she, soon after, afforded us as abundant cause to complain of her. She pirated upon our ships, and plundered our commerce. Not ten millions - perhaps not twenty millions - could measure the damage, which she thus did us. It is true, that she committed this crime, under great urgency - under temptations not easily resisted. Europe was combined against her: and she robbed our ships to save herself from starving. It is true, too, that she, always, confessed the crime; and, always, promised reparation, when she should be in circumstances to make it. It is, also, true, that she did provide for it. She provided for it, by releasing us from our obligations to herself, in consideration of our releasing her from the claims of our citizens, whom she had plundered. She ceased to be the debtor of those citizens: and our nation became such debtor, in her stead. Our nation came into this relation, by virtually taking private property to pay a national debt - her debt to France. I do not complain of her for doing so. I complain of her dishonesty, in never paying for this private property. Repeatedly, has she been called on for payment, both by those, who lost the property, and by their children and children's children. Oftentimes, they have come near success. Once, the Bill for their relief passed both Houses of Congress: and the chief reason, if I recollect, why the President vetoed it, was, that we needed all the money in the Treasury for prosecuting our war with Mexico. I trust, that the time has now come, when these petitioners for so long delayed, so obvious; and so needed, justice will succeed in obtaining it.

But there are objections to the payment of the claims in question. The first is, that were the claims valid, they would have been paid, half a century ago. But we must bear in mind the poverty, indebtedness, and various embarrassments of our new-born nation, during the first part of the present century. It was as difficult to pay our debts then, as it is now easy. Moreover, it must not be forgotten, that the principal proofs of the validity of these claims lay, undiscovered among the files of the State Department, for some twenty five years. Had these proofs been brought to light, when we had a fresh and strong sense oŁ the much, which France had yielded to us, in return for our exoneration of her from the demands of our injured citizens, we would have paid these claims, notwithstanding our small ability, at that time, to pay them. In connexion with my reference to the long concealment of the chief proofs of the validity of these claims, I would state, that of the twenty five Congressional Reports on these claims, all, that were adverse to them, were three made during that concealment.

The second objection to the payment of these claims is, that, even if they were valid, they are now quite too old to be acknowledged and paid. Such was the objection, as long ago, as when the chief proofs in question were discovered. Even then the sense of the immeasurable value of what we had received from France had, to a great extent, died out of the public mind. Even then, it was felt to be cheaper to turn the back on these claims than to acknowledge and pay them. But if the age of the claims was so influential an argument against them then, much more influential will it be like to be now, when that age is doubled.

[2]

But the argument was not then, nor is it now, entitled to any influence. At the bar of a sound conscience a just claim is never outlawed - never obsolete - never stale. We have been guilty of a very deep wrong, in not paying these claims, long ago. Shall we also be guilty of taking advantage of our own deep wrong, and of making our unjust delay to pay these claims an excuse for disowning them, and casting them aside?

Another objection to the paying of these claims is, that they were provided for under Treaties, subsequent to the Convention of 1800 - viz. the Louisiana Treaty; the Florida Treaty; and Rives' Treaty. My answer to this objection is 1st that it is not true: 2d that, if true, nevertheless the Bill provides against paying any of these claims, so far as they are provided for in those Treaties: and 3d that, whether the objection is true or false, the claims have not been paid.

Another objection is, that the claims are in the hands of speculators, who purchased them at a great discount, and, in many instances, for a mere trifle. To this objection I reply 1st that wherever the claims are, we should pay them: 2d that they are not in the hands of speculators, but in the hands of the original claimants, and their descendants, and the Insurance Companies, which lost by the spoliations, and, also, to a small extent, in the hands of those, to whom they were transferred by the operation of bankrupt and insolvent Jaws: 3d that the Bill provides, that the purchasers of any of these claims shall be allowed no more than they paid for them and the interest on what they paid.

Another objection is, that our Treaties with France were annulled by an Act of Congress in 1798; and that, therefore, at the time of the Convention of 1800, there were no Treaties left to set off against our surrender of the claims of our wronged citizens upon France. But that Act did not have, and did not pretend to have, a retrospective operation. Its language implied the full force of the Treaties up to the time of the enactment, and during most of the spoliations. Again, the Act could have no power to annul the Treaties. It takes as many to unmake a bargain, as it does to make it. Nothing is better settled than that one of the parties to a Treaty is incapable of rescinding it.

I pass onto consider the most relied on objection to paying these claims. It is, that we were at war with France, at, and after, the time, when they accrued; that our Treaties with her were thereby annulled; and that, hence, we had not to purchase satisfaction of the Treaties by undertaking to pay the debts of France, nor by yielding any other consideration. But, in answer to this objection, we say, 1st that we do not admit, that these Treaties could be annulled by war: 2d that we were never at war with France - war never having been declared - general reprisals never having been authorized - the provisions of Congress being expressly operative, only "in case war should break out'' - the Courts of the two nations recognizing no war between them, but both holding themselves open to the citizens of both nations: 3d that if the Convention of 1800 did not recognize, and abrogate, the Treaties; nevertheless, as amended by the additional article, in which "the two States renounce the respective pretensions &c." our Government clearly became responsible to satisfy the claims in question: 4th that, even if the Treaties were not in fact binding upon us, nevertheless we certainly did discharge France from those claims, in order, that we might be released from the Treaties; and that, hence, it is not competent for us to devolve on the claimants the loss of our bad bargain. Whether the bargain was good or bad, but for it the claims would have continued to exist against France, and would have been paid by France.

Only one more objection to the payment of these claims remains to be noticed. It is, that the claimants were prosecuting their business - were engaged in their commercial pursuits - at their own risk. But, if it was at their own risk, nevertheless our Government was bound to seek redress for the wrongs and losses, which the claimants suffered. The Government did seek such redress; and it did obtain it. But it proved a faithless agent. Instead of paying over to its principals the indemnity, which it obtained for them. it put that indemnity into its own pocket, and kept it there. Moreover, is it right to say, that the commerce in question was carried on, at the sole risk of the claimants? By no means. There was not only the general obligation of Government to protect, in all such cases; - but, in this case, our Government had especially bound itself to endeavor to get indemnity for losses. At the time it did so, our Government was so poor, as to be vitally interested in the continuance and extension of our foreign commerce. Its empty Treasury was in the most urgent need of the duties on imports. Accordingly, the Secretary of State, Mr. Jefferson, upon the order of President Washington, issued a paper, as early as the year 1793, encouraging our merchants, who had embarked in this business, to face its risks; by promising them the interposition of Government for their safety.

But I will bring my, perhaps, too long letter to a close. We have seen, that the objections to these claims are unreasonable, and, altogether, unworthy of admission. We have seen, that, by every just consideration they should be paid. Does the Bill provide too large a sum for their payment? The sum is far too small. It provides but five millions of dollars, though the claims amount, including interest, to probably thirty or forty millions of dollars. In the year 1800, our Ministers offered a million and a half of dollars to purchase our release from two of the Articles in our Treaties with France. But France would not have sold the release for treble that sum. She did, however, discharge us from all our Treaty obligations to her, in consideration of our discharging her from these claims of our plundered citizens. It is noteworthy, that the million and a half of dollars amount, with the interest thereon, to far more than the Bill proposes we shall pay.

[3]

I must not omit to remind you, that the authority of many of the greatest names in our early history - names both of jurists and statesmen - even Marshall and Madison and Jefferson - is on the side of the undoubted justice of these claims.

In the name of justice, of humanity, of decency, let not Congress again turn away these meritorious claimants. If we are not willing to pay them ten millions, let us, at least, be willing to pay them five. Let us pay something on these claims, whilst, as yet, there are grandchildren of the original sufferers to receive it. Most of those sufferers and their immediate descendants have gone down to the grave: and, in many instances, their last years were years of bitter poverty, because of our injustice. I repeat it, let us pay them something, ere not only the original claimants, and their children, but their grandchildren also, shall have passed beyond the reach of our returning sense of justice. Let me here remark, that our Government has provided indemnity, to the amount of many millions, for other French spoliations on our commerce, and for British, and Spanish, and Danish, and other yet spoliations on it. But no provision has it made to relieve the sufferers in this instance. Cruel discrimination! and as causeless as cruel! I said causeless. It is worse than this - for the claims before us are especially obligatory - are peculiarly sacred.

But it is not alone from regard to the claimants, that we should pay these claims. It is also due to the honor and the heart of France. She inflicted a deep wrong upon many of our citizens. It is true, that, at a great price, she purchased reparation for this deep wrong. But the reparation was never made: - and, until it is, not only will her sense of humanity be pained, but her merit, in purchasing the reparation, will lack its crowning glory. I scarcely need add, that our own nation will be dishonored in the eyes of other nations, until we shall have performed this duty, which France bought us to perform; which, now, whilst our Treasury is overflowing, it is so easy to perform; and which cannot be postponed again, without manifesting a stranger insensibility than ever to the calls of justice and humanity.

Respectfully yours,

GERRIT SMITH.