DEC. 16, 1834.]

missioner of the General Land Office, made in compliance with a resolution of the Senate of the 4th instant, relative to sales of public lands, at two land offices in Mississippi.

Mr. POINDEXTER made a few remarks on the singularity of the fact that this report contained matter which was not called for by the resolution to which it was a response, and which might be truly called extraofficial. He also expressed surprise that a resolution sent from the Senate on the 4th, should not have reached the Land Office before the 8th. Either the Secretary must have been very remiss in sending the resolution to the Land Office, or the Commissioner must have been absent from his office on some very pressing business, which stood between him and the execution of his duties. He was unwilling to believe that the Secretary had caused the delay of four days in sending this resolution to a Department which was within sight of the Capitol, and he hoped, as he intended to bring the subject before the Senate, that the Secretary would explain the cause of the delay.

After an inaudible remark from the CHAIR,
The report was ordered to be printed.

LAFAYETTE.

The message received from the House of Representatives last week, informing the Senate of the proceedings taken by the House, in obedience to a resolution of the last session, to pay honors to the memory of General Lafayette, was taken up and concurred in; and a committee of five members was ordered, on motion of Mr. WEBSTER, to be appointed by the CHAIR, on the part of the Senate.

On motion of Mr. POINDEXTER, the Senate then proceeded to the consideration of executive business; and, after the doors were reopened, The Senate adjourned.

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 16.

IMPROVEMENT OF THE WABASH. On motion of Mr. TIPTON, the resolution submitted by him a few days since, directing an inquiry into the expediency of making an appropriation to improve the navigation of the, river Wabash, was taken up for consideration.

Mr. TIPTON said: The resolution now before the Senate is to renew an effort to obtain an appropriation to improve the navigation of the Wabash. It is with great reluctance I obtrude myself upon the notice of the Senate; but this subject is of such vital importance to my constituents that I cannot let it rest without making another effort to serve them. The feeble state of my health will compel me to condense what I desired to say at this time in relation to the subject. Bills have passed both branches of Congress, at different sessions, appropriating money to improve that river; but to these bills the President of the United States has refused his sanction, under a mistaken idea. I have no doubt of the claims of the river, and the facts of the case. 1 consider it due to myself, and not disrespectful to the President of the United States, to state that I differ from him in opinion in relation to the power to appropriate money to improve the navigation of our rivers. He does not feel authorized to sanction appropriations to improve rivers, unless it be such as lead to ports of entry established by law, and has more than once refused his sanction to bills for improving the Wabash.

I am confident, said Mr. T., that the power exists to appropriate money to improve our rivers in any portion of the United States, where the business of the country and the capacity of the rivers require improvement.

[SENATE.

I have no fears in trusting all the money in the Treasury to the discretion of the appropriating power, to be applied to such objects as the interests of the country may require. Under the supervision and control that the people hold over their public servants through the ballot-box, all is perfectly safe.

The President, in his message returning the last bill to the Senate, has signified that, if a port of entry were established on the Wabash, it would bring an appropri ation to improve this river within the rule that he has laid down for the government of his own action in such cases. I consider it due to myself, and not disrespectful to the President, to state that I differ from him on this subject; and, without being able to perceive either the wisdom or the justice of this rule, I have determined, from the necessities of the case, to conform to it, so far as to ask the Senate to pass bills establishing a port of entry at Lafayette, and of appropriating money to improve the river, and hope that honorable Senators will look at the justice of this application, and give it their

sanction.

At the last session of Congress the bill for improving the navigation of the Wabash was laid before the President on the 28th of June, two days before Congress adjourned; and on the 30th of that month, the last day of the session, we received a verbal message, through our committee, informing us that the President of the United States had approved and signed all the bills passed at the then present session of Congress, except that for improving the navigation of the Wabash; and as that bill involved a question of importance, it was retained for further consideration. In his message returning this bill to the Senate, a few days ago, the President stated that he had not been able to satisfy his mind that the bill ought to pass; and he goes on to state his objections against extravagant appropriations for internal improvement, and he argues over again the case of the Maysville road bill, but says not a word as to the merits or demerits of the Wabash bill, against which I contend that no sound reason can be produced, drawn from the constitution or practice of this Government from its foundation; nor am I able to discover any necessary connexion between the Maysville road bill and the Wabash bill. The former provides for a local object, the construction of a road from one point to another within a State; the latter provides means to improve an important river, the line of demarcation between two States; a reserved public highway for all the people of the United States, as I shall presently show.

The common phrase, internal improvement, we generally use in speaking of roads and canals. These may be local: a road or a canal can be constructed in any di rection: through a State or county; but, sir, improving the navigation of our rivers is very different. The rivers of the United States are the common property of all; every body may navigate them without let or hindrance; and that the joint funds of the nation should improve them, cannot, in my judgment, be denied. This principle has been acted on from our earliest history, and I know of no case where the General Government has refused to improve a river of so much importance to any portion of our country as the Wabash is to the Western States.

The appropriation now asked is to be expended, in connexion with others, to open a line of water communication form New York to New Orleans. It should be borne in mind that large appropriations have been made to improve the navigation of the Hudson, the Mississippi, and the Ohio rivers. The New York canal will connect the Hudson with Lake Erie at Buffalo; the Wabash and Erie canal is to connect Lake Erie, through the Miami river, with the Wabash, at or near the town of Lafayette. The Wabash and Erie canal is upwards

of 200 miles long; 80 miles of this canal lies within the State of Ohio, and 130 in the State of Indiana. This canal is now being constructed; 35 miles of that part of the canal that lies in Indiana is finished, and will be filled with water next spring. Upwards of forty miles more is now under contract, and to be completed next fall; and it is in contemplation to put the balance of this canal within Indiana under contract next season. There can be no reasonable doubt but Ohio will finish her portion of this noble work without unnecessary delay, and we look with confidence to the completion of this work within three years.

Following down the Wabash, from the intersection of our canal at Lafayette to the rapids at White river, where the improvement contemplated in the bill is to be made, the distance is 300 miles, navigable for steamboats most of the year; and from these rapids to the Ohio is about 100 miles, also navigable. By improving these rapids, and the completion of our canal, we will open a water communication from New York to New Orleans, the shortest and the best that can ever be constructed across this continent. Is such a work not worthy the attention of the General Government, or is the door of appropriation now to be closed on the application of Indiana and Illinois for aid to complete this important public work?

The Wabash is a reserved public highway, by compact between the United States, and the Commonwealth of Virginia, at the time Virginia ceded the Northwest Territory to the United States; and by an ordinance of Congress of 13th July, 1787. The 4th article of that ordinance concludes thus: "The navigable waters leading into the Mississippi and St. Lawrence, and the carrying places between the same, shall be common highways, and for ever free, as well to the inhabitants of the said Territory as to the citizens of the United States, and those of any other State that may be admitted into this confederacy, without any tax, impost, or duty therefor." By an act of 2d of March, 1827, Congress granted land to aid in constructing a canal, to connect, at navigable points, the waters of the Wabash with those of Lake Erie, and reserved the right to the United States to transport troops and munitions of war on the canal free of any charge. This canal is now in rapid progress of construction. It lies within the limits of two States, and embraces what was the principal carrying place between the Mississippi and the St. Lawrence, at the time of forming the act of cession and ordnance above quoted. The United States has reserved the right to use both our river and canal free of any charge. Can it be unreasonable or unconstitutional to call on the United States to aid in improving the navigation of this river?

At the point where this appropriation is to be expended, the Wabash is the line of demarcation between Indiana and Illinois. Each State has made an appropriation to aid in improving the rapids, but these young States have not the ability to complete this work. Indiana has contracted a debt, for the prosecution of the canal, of near half a million of dollars; it may be neces sary to extend this debt to double that amount this year; and our people very naturally, and I think very properly, look to the General Government, the great landholder in the West, to improve these rapids with the joint funds of the nation, as it will evidently benefit the whole.

The State of Indiana pays into the United States treasury, as a tax or duty on goods imported from foreign markets, and consumed by her citizens, as large a sum as any State in the Union of the same population, beside what her citizens pay for the public lands bought for cultivation. She has no harbors to improve, except that of Trail creek, on Lake Michigan; no breakwaters,

[DEC. 16, 1834.

to draw millions from the treasury in their construction. She asks nothing but aid to improve the navigation of her river, which the United States have reserved the right to navigate free of any charge. No session of Congress passes but other States are provided with money to improve their rivers. The Hudson, James, Savannah, Red river, and Cumberland, with a long list of other smaller streams that I will not take the time of the Senate to read, have been improved by the General Government.

During the session of Congress of 1831-'32, a bill passed, and was approved, authorizing the improving of the Monongahela and other rivers, to points where there were no ports of entry; and the Globe, in apologizing for that approval, says: "if the purposes contemplated by Congress can be accomplished, and the three rivers mentioned made navigable to the points in question, then ports of entry will of course be established at the head of navigation." I ask, why not be thus liberal with the Wabash? That river is larger than the Monongahela; waters a more extensive territory of the finest soil in the world, with a numerous population to be provided for.

To show what has been done elsewhere, I have pro. cured a statement of appropriations for improving, made in 1832 and 1834.

Appropriations for improving rivers, made in 1832. — Laws
1st Sess. 22d Congress, 1832, page 134.
Kennebunk river, Maine,
Pascagoula river,

Red river, Louisiana and Arkansas,
Berwick branch of the Piscataqua river,
Entrance of Genesee river,

Cape Fear river, below Wilmington, N. C.
Ohio, Missouri, and Mississippi rivers,
The President authorized to extend the steam-
boat navigation from Pittsburg to the Cum-
berland road at Brownsville; also the Mis-
souri, from its junction with the Mississippi
to the mouth of the Kansas river; and also
the upper Mississippi, from St. Louis to Ga-
lena, with power to remove all obstructions
in the channel, &c. &c.
The Arkansas river,

The mouth of Conneaut creek, Ohio,
Removing obstructions at the mouth of the
Ashtabula creek, Ohio,

Removing obstructions at the mouth of the
Grand river, Ohio,
Removing sand-bar, mouth Black river,
Mouth Huron river,
Cumberland river,
Savannah river,

$ 2,600 15,900

22,628

250

16,000

28,000 50,000

15,000 7,800

3,800

2,600

8,000

1,500

30,000

25,000

DEC. 16, 1834.}

Ashtabula creek, Ohio, Cumberland river, Hudson river, (page 103)

30,000 70,000

The statement shows that millions on millions are appropriated to improving rivers and small streams east of the mountains. If but 10, 20, or 50 miles long, you call them rivers, and we improve them. I do not mention this in a spirit of complaint, but to show the contrast. We have our 500 miles of Wabash, 1000 miles of Ohio, and 2000 miles of Mississippi: these, we think, present equal claims to attention, and I feel it to be my duty to urge them on the attention of Congress. All other rivers have been improved except the Wabash, while bills for that river are vetoed or withheld. Now, is this necessary, is it just, or proper, and do those in power think that my constituents will remain for ever silent under such circumstances? I have recently been taught that a system is practised to keep men silent that incline to speak out. When Congress adjourned last summer, I addressed a circular to my constituents, informing them what had been done for their benefit, and how much was left undone, but said nothing flattering of the treat. ment the Wabash bill had met with, and concluded by advising the people to correct these wrongs through the ballot-box.

After the publication of my circular, the Globe, a newspaper published in this city, devoted three or four of its long columns to abusing me, because I had dared to address my constituents. But I do not feel injured by the attack of the Globe: the writer in that paper must establish a character for truth and veracity among the people of Indiana before he need expect his word to be taken against one that they have known long, and known well. The writer of the article in the Globe has mistaken his man; the press, nor any other power that can be brought to bear upon me, cannot intimidate or keep me silent while the interest of Indiana is at stake; and inth is case of an appropriation to improve the Wabash river, I contend that justice has not been done her. I do not intend, Mr. President, to charge the Chief Magistrate with intentional injustice, but only to say that he has acted under a mistaken apprehension of the facts, which has worked injustice to my constituents.

A President, or any other public officer, is but a transient being; here to-day, gone to-morrow; but the principles of justice on which our Government should be administered are immutable, and will endure in all time to come. Every public man owes a heavy responsibility to his constituents, and I would have felt unworthy the confidence reposed in me, if I had remained silent on a subject so deeply interesting to those that I, in part, have the honor to represent here.

The term of service of our present Chief Magistrate is drawing to a close. What he has done, he has done. It will go down to posterity, and form his political character; and God knows I would not, if I could, strip a laurel from his brow. But this subject of improving our rivers cannot rest bere; the people should take that matter into their own hands, and, in selecting a successor to the present Chief Magistrate, before they cast their votes, ascertain whether he is for or against internal improvement. No, sir, that is too broad a term; it can be construed to mean any thing or nothing, or explained away. The voters should ascertain whether candidates are for or against improving our rivers; and no one holding the opposite doctrine need expect one-fourth of the votes in the valley of the Mississippi.

I hope the resolution, and the one for establishing the port of entry at Lafayette, will be adopted, and that both Congress and the President will agree that the General Government should aid in improving the navigation of the Wabash; for I am unwilling to believe, without more

Mr. WEBSTER asked for the reading of the resolution; which having been read,

Mr. W. said he had asked for the reading of the resolution, because he had not understood whether the sub. ject-matter under consideration was, as it then appeared to be, simply an appropriation to improve the naviga tion of the river Wabash, or whether it was the other resolution submitted by the gentleman from Indiana, [Mr. TIPTON,] instructing the Committee on Commerce to inquire into the expediency of establishing a port of entry on that river. That other resolution was for the purpose of doing away, as he understood, the constitutional objections to an appropriation for the improve. ment contemplated. If the last-named resolution had been called up, it was his intention to say something on the subject. Whether it be constitutional for Congress to make an improvement on a particular river, or whether, in order to make that improvement constitutional, a port of entry must first be established on the river, was a subject on which he should take the liberty to express his views at a proper time. With regard to the resolution under consideration, he had no objection to its adoption. He had no more doubt of the right of Congress to improve the navigation of the Wabash, than to appropriate money for the Delaware breakwater, for the improvement of Boston harbor, to erect fortifications, to improve a harbor on Lake Erie, or to build a lighthouse at the mouth of the Balize. He thought so at the last session of Congress, and thought so still. If the honorable gentleman thought Congress had better pass another law to make the improvement he had in view, he would not object to the measure; but he had no hopes of the passage of another law on the subject, with better success than the one of the last year, until there was more unanimity on the subject in the public coun cils. When the other resolution came up for consideration, he should take the liberty to express his views briefly in relation to it.

The resolution was then adopted without a division.
ELECTION OF CHAPLAIN.

The Senate then proceeded to ballot for Chaplain, as the special order of the day, which resulted as follows:

SENATE.]

PUBLIC LANDS.

The bill introduced, on leave, by Mr. CLAY, to ap propriate, for a limited time, the proceeds of the sales of the public lands, and for other purposes, came up on its second reading.

Mr. CLAY observed that the bill was in the same shape exactly that it was when before the Committee on Public Lands at the last session, and as they reported it. He therefore thought it wholly unnecessary to lay the subject again before the committee, for they were sufficiently burdened with other matters; but if it was the pleasure of the Senate to do so, he had no objection to agree to it.

Mr. KING, of Alabama, said that it was departing from the usual course to make so important a subject the order of the day, without its being first referred to a committee. He did not know how the committees were

at present constituted, but he presumed there must be some changes in them, as there were many new members who might feel disposed to examine the measure in its details.

Mr. CLAY repeated that the bill was identically the same as the one of last year. The Committee on Public Lands was composed of precisely the same members as composed the committee of the last session. That committee had made a very able and elaborate report, which was in the hands of every gentleman. He could not, therefore, see any possible reason why the bill should undergo a second examination by the same committee. Mr. KING then withdrew his objections, and the bill was made the order of the day for next Tuesday week. The Senate then adjourned.

WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 17.

FRENCH SPOLIATIONS PRIOR TO 1800.

The bill to provide for the satisfaction of claims due to certain American citizens for spoliations committed on their commerce prior to the 30th day of September, 1800, coming up for consideration

Mr. WEBSTER rose and said, this subject had been often before the Senate, in various forms, and he trusted that its general character was well understood by every member of the Senate. He therefore should not repeat what had been said on former occasions, in presenting the question to the consideration of this body. Several reports had been made, going much at large into the merits of these claims, and setting forth the obligation of making to the claimants some degree of compensation. Those reports were accompanied by documents, statements, and estimates, of a voluminous size, all of which had been printed, and he supposed had been before every member of the Senate. The session before last, (since which period not a great number of changes has been made in the Senate,) he went largely into details to show the justice of these claims; and, at the last session, an honorable Senator from Maryland, not now here, had opened the whole subject to the consideration of this body.

He (Mr. W.) should content himself with stating very briefly an outline of the grounds on which these claims are supposed to rest, and then leave the subject to the consideration of the Senate. He, however, should be happy, in the course of the debate, to make such explanations as might be called for. It would be seen that the bill proposed to make satisfaction, to an amount not exceeding five millions of dollars, to such citizens of he United States, or their legal representatives, as had Valid claims for indemnity on the French Government, rising out of illegal captures, detentions, and condemnations, made or committed on their property prior to the

[DEC. 17, 1834.

30th day of September, 1800. This bill supposed two or three leading propositions to be true.

It supposed, in the first place, that rillegal seizures, detentions, captures, condemnations, and confiscations, were made, of the vessels and property of the citizens of the United States, before the 30th September, 1800.

It supposed, in the second place, that these acts of wrong were committed by such orders and under such circumstances, as that the sufferers had a just right and claim for indemnity from the hands of the Government

of France.

Going on these two propositions, the bill assumed one other, and that was, that all such claims on France as came within a prescribed period, or down to a prescribed period, had been annulled by the United States, and that this gave them a right to claim indemnity from this Government. It supposed a liability in justice, in fairness and equity, on the part of this Government, to make the indemnity, These were the grounds on which the bill was framed. That there were many such consfiscations no one doubted, and many such acts of wrong as were mentioned in the first section of the bill. That they were committed by Frenchmen, and under such cir cumstances as gave those who suffered wrong an unquestionable right to claim indemnity from the French Gov. ernment, nobody, he supposed, at this day, would question. There were two questions which might be made the subject of discussion, and two only occurred to him at that moment. The one was, "On what ground was the Government of the United States answerable to any extent for the injury done to these claimants?" The other, "To what extent was the Government in justice bound?" And first-of the first. "Why was it that the Government of the United States had become responsible in law or equity to its citizens, for the claims-for any indemnity for the wrongs committed on their commerce by the subjects of France before 1800?"

To this question there was an answer, which, whether satisfactory or not, had at least the merit of being a very short one. It was, that, by a treaty between France and the United States, bearing date the 30th of September, 1800, in a political capacity, the Government of the United States discharged and released the Government of France from this indemnity. It went upon the ground, which was sustained by all the correspondence which had preceded the treaty of 1800, that the disputes arising between the two countries should be settled by a negotiation. And claims and pretensions having been asserted on either side, commissioners on the part of the United States were sent out to assert and maintain the claims of indemnity which they demanded; while commissioners appointed on the part of France asserted a claim to the full extent of the stipulations made in '78, which they said the United States had promised to fulfil, and in order to carry into effect the treaty of alliance of the same date, viz: February, 1778.

The negotiation ultimately terminated, and a treaty was finally ratified upon the terms and conditions of an offset of the respective claims against each other, and for ever; so that the United States Government, by the surrender and discharge of these claims of its citizens, had made this surrender to the French Government to obtain for itself a discharge from the onerous liabilities imposed upon them by the treaty of 1778, and in order to escape from fulfilling other stipulations proclaimed in the treaty of commerce of that year, and which, if not fulfilled, might have brought about a war with France. This was the ground on which these claims rested.

Heretofore, when the subject had been before Congress, gentlemen had taken this view of the case; and he believed there was a report presented to the Senate at the time, which set forth that the claims of our citi

zens, being left open, the United States had done these claimants no injury, and that it did not exempt the Government of France from liability.

It was urged, too, that there was no reason to cherish a hope of obtaining any substantial indemnity from France, as it had undergone so many changes in its political affairs on account of the revolution, and other causes, since the depredations were committed. The subject was met with accumulated objections, and it was said that, on account of the worthless character of the claims, there could have been no reasonable hope of obtaining indemnity from France, and therefore the Government was not bound in equity to make compensation at all. He thought we had advanced too far in this period of our history to maintain any longer such an hypothesis, because we have since had experience that claims, not more meritorious in their character, have been pressed on France under the existing Government, until, by a solemn treaty, it has been stipulated to pay for them twenty-five millions of francs. The Government had itself asserted the validity and value of such claims as were now existing in behalf of the citizens of the United States against the French Government. We had obtained from France a treaty of indemnity, by which she stipulated to pay, for aggressions, the sun of twenty-five millions of francs.

It had never been supposed that these claims prior to 1800 could fairly be compensated out of this fund, for the very reason that they were released; and if the Government of the United States had had no other claim to press upon the justice of the French Government than such as existed before 1800, they would have been barred and precluded from any such claims by the express words of the treaty of 1800. This question seemed now of less importance to be dwelt upon, inasmuch as by a recent treaty with France, and under a law of Congress passed for carrying it into execution, a board of commissioners had been established to ascertain the claims on that fund, and to distribute it according to the intention of the treaty; and that board, it was well known, a year or two since, came to the determination that this class of claimants had no claim on the fund, because the United States had released all their claims by the treaty of 1800; and the whole fund obtained by the recent treaty was to be distributed among those who had suffered acts of wrong committed subsequent to 1800.

This, then, was the ground of the claim. Here, then, were substantial claims which were in the nature of property, and they were such claims as, in regard to that nation and other nations, could have been settled after the pacification of Europe, according to their value. The Government of the United States relinquished the claims in behalf of the nation, but not for individual claimants. By this act of the Government they had been deprived of all right to apply to the Government of France, and had been adjudged to have no right to apply under the commission now sitting to distribute the sum stipulated to be paid by France for depredations committed on the commerce of the United States.

This is the ground of the claim.

The other question respects the amount. It was natural it should be asked, "how was it that we are able to fix, as the reasonable estimate, the sum of $5,000,000?" The answer was, those to whom the subject had been committed had gone through the labor of an examination, in order to see what was the number of vessels and cargoes destroyed, burnt, confiscated, &c., prior to the treaty of 1800, by the Government of France. Their opinion was, that the sum of $5,000,000 was not too high, in proportion to the sum obtained for the other class of claimants. He did not propose to go further into the subject at present.

Mr. WEBSTER having concluded his remarks, and no
VOL. XI.--2

[SENATE.

amendment having been proposed, the bill was reported to the Senate.

Mr. TYLER said that this was a bill of the highest importance; not merely in reference to the amount of the sum appropriated, but on account of the principle involved. Some years ago it had become his duty to examine this subject, and after giving to it the fullest examination, he had come to the conclusion that there was no just foundation for the claims. He had had the pleasure of listening to the honorable Senator from Massachusetts twice in support of these claims, and capable as that gentleman was of shaking his (Mr. T's.) opinion on matters of law, whether national or municipal, his opinion on this subject remained unchanged. It would be recollected that these claims took their origin as far back as the year 1796; he could not be very exact as to dates, but they covered the whole of the time subsequent to that period, up to the year 1800. Before, therefore, the Senate could act on this bill, it would become them to look into the whole history of the intermediate period, and to see what was the situation in which the Governments of France and of the United States stood towards each other during that time. It would be seen that our Government had not neglected any efforts to obtain recompense for these claimants from France. Minister after minister had been sent to France for the purpose of negotiating on this point. We had had special embassies for the purpose of pressing these claims on the consideration of France. This object had been pursued up to the year 1800, with the utmost assiduity, and the Government of the United States had thus fulfilled every duty which it owed to its citizens. Every obligation of this character had been discharged by the Government, as far as it had the power, by those negotiations.

These claims had been pressed on the ground that the United States had, by the treaty of 1800, made provision for the payment, and had discharged France from all liability. Turn and twist it as you will, (said Mr. T.,) the argument amounts only to this: that the Government of the United States, for a valid consideration, assumed these claims. And what was that consideration? It was a consideration upon which no payment could be made, on which no claimant could rest. By the treaty of 1778, there were mutual stipulations between France and the United States. One of these stipulations was that France should guaranty the independence of the United States, while the United States should guaranty to France the two West India islands, Guadaloupe and Martinique.

In the war which prevailed afterwards between Great Britain and France, the obligation on the United States to fulfil this part of the treaty remained in full force. Was it expected that the United States should make herself a party to this war? He put it to the gentleman from Massachusetts to say, with all the correspondence before him, if there was not then a great anxiety on the part of the United States to get rid of that guarantee. Had an American citizen a right to come here for compensation for losses, because the United States, by a subsequent treaty, got rid of that guarantee? The United States never intended to comply with that feature of the treaty of 1778. Yet the ground taken was, that, because the United States had got rid of the guarantee, she was bound to compensate for these spoliations. He contended that such a conclusion was in opposition to every authority which could be brought forward.

But there were other grounds which pressed themselves upon his memory. A great part of these claims would go to the ensurers. What he said was this: if the Government was bound to repay the losses of these ensurers, it was equally entitled to share in their profits, according to the established policy of ensurance offices, and there were immense profits made during that pe