Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB
[blocks in formation]

liate her offence? I have been told by a gentleman who has just returned from France, and who well knows the dispositions of her Government and of her people, that he has not a doubt, if the Senate had voted the appropriation of three millions of dollars, showing thereby united councils at home, the money would have been paid, and the whole matter satisfactorily settled, before the commencement of this session of Congress.

[SENATE.

tyranny, have left to neutral nations an alternative only between the base surrender of their rights and a manly vindication of them. Happily for the United States, their destiny, under the aid of Heaven, is in their own hands. The crisis is formidable only by their love of peace. As soon as it becomes a duty to relinquish that situation, danger disappears. They have suffered no wrongs, they have received no insults, however great, for which they cannot obtain redress."

This refusal on the part of the Senate would not have "The British Government might for a while be satisplaced itself in so strong a light to the French Govern-fied with the ascendency thus gained over us, (by subment, had it not have come from that majority in the mission,) and its pretensions would soon increase. The Senate which had been most liberal in voting away the proof, of which so complete and disgraceful a submission public money. It should be understood by the people to its authority would afford of our degeneracy, would of the United States that, although there was a change not fail to inspire confidence that there was no limit to in the administration in 1829, there has been no sub- which its usurpations and our degradations might not be stantial change in the men who have lived on the pub-carried. Your committee, believing that the free-born lic expenditures. The public deposites have been sons of America are worthy to enjoy the liberty which removed from the United States Bank; thanks to the their fathers purchased at the price of so much blood people under the lead of that man who conquered and treasure, and seeing in the measures adopted by another but not less potent enemy at New Orleans; the Great Britain a course persisted in which must lead to a public deposites have been removed, but the drawers of loss of national character and independence, feel no hes the public money are the same men, four out of five, itation in advising resistance by force, in which the that they ever have been. The cormorants which feed Americans of the present day will prove to the enemy, on the bowels of the treasury have not flown away. and to the world, that we have not only inherited that They have looked to the Senate as the citadel of their liberty which our fathers gave us, but also the will and protection-the Senate would deny the right of that power to maintain it. Relying on the patriotism of the Chief Magistrate, elected by the people for the pur- nation, and confidently trusting that the Lord of Hosts pose, to annoy them. To this class of men the major will go with us to battle in a righteous cause, and crown ity of the Senate has always been generous; nay, it will our efforts with success, your committee recommend an be found that a majority of the Senate, in its last six immediate appeal to arms." sessions, has sanctioned, without scruple, the increase of officers and of official emoluments. Standing in this relation, it may truly be said that the Senate has exercised a greater power and influence in this Government to convert the public patronage and the public money into an electioneering engine, than any other department of the Government.

Decidedly as I had disapproved of the opinions of the Senators from Massachusetts, [Mr. WEBSTER,] and South Carolina, [Mr. CALHOUN,] I was surprised and astounded at their avowals in this debate. Those avowals, Mr. President, and not the petty disputes about who was accountable for the fate of the fortification bill, at the last moment of the session; those avowals are what the nation will regard. Those avowals fix the true character of the rejection of the fortification bill. One Senator [Mr. WEBSTER] says he would not have voted the appropriation, if the enemy had been thundering at the walls of this Capitol. I regret that the Senator, in making this declaration, should discover that he had not repented of his course during the war of 1812; and if I had expected no better things of him at this period, I do most sincerely lament that the course of the other Senator, [Mr. CALHOUN,] who utters the craven sentiment that we ought not to arm lest we shall provoke a more powerful antagonist to hostilities, should have been downward. How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!" I can but feebly express how much my then youthful heart was elated at the repeated perusal of the report on foreign relations, drawn by that gentleman, and made to the House of Representatives, June 3, 1812. I cannot better exhibit the spirit of that report than by reading one or two extracts:

"But the period has now arrived when the United States must support their character and station among the nations of the earth, or submit to the most shameful degradation. Forbearance has ceased to be a virtue. War on the one side, and peace on the other, is a situation as ruinous as it is disgraceful. The mad ambition, the lust of power, and commercial avarice, of Great Britain, arrogating to herself the complete dominion of the ocean, and exercising over it an unbounded and lawless VOL. XII.--21

Here was an exhibition worthy the spirit of a free people-worthy any age and any country. My first admiration of the gentleman was for the doctrines he then advanced. His voice was then for war rather than disgrace. His maxim was then-millions for defence, but no submission. My disapprobation of the gentleman now is, that he has "left his own, to stand on foreign ground,"-that he has deserted the principles he at first inculcated. Both the Senators will excuse me when I declare that I am not of their communion. I go now, as I ever have gone, for appropriations to the utmost amount that can be efficiently and properly expended to put the country into a complete state of defence, and, if need be, to prosecute to a successful termination any war waged either for our honor or our rights.

Mr. LINN, after Mr. HILL had concluded, said: I rise, Mr. President, merely for the purpose of preventing a misconstruction or misunderstanding of my course on the last night of the last session, in relation to the printing a document connected with the subject of private land claims in Missouri, and which was deemed necessary to a right understanding of the matter. I made two motions to print that document, both of which were lost in consequence of there being no quorum of the Senate present. It was a small affair, and would have cost the Government but a trifle for the work. from the manner it is now brought into notice by the honorable member from New Hampshire, it would, without explanation, appear as if I had made a proposition to print public documents, the cost of which would amount to one or two hundred thousand dollars. I made no such proposition, nor did I vote for any such. They came from another quarter.

But

Mr. WEBSTER said he had a word which he wished to say before this subject should come up again. He thought the resolution was not direct enough. It was

in these words:

"Resolved, That so much of the surplus revenue of the United States, and the dividends of stock receivable from the Bank of the United States, as may be necessary for the purpose, ought to be set apart and applied to the general defence and permanent security of the country."

[blocks in formation]

Now, this looked as if nothing but surplus! revenue was to be applied to these great objects. That, sir, (said Mr. W.) is not direct enough for me. These important objects are primary and essential. They certainly are entitled to be satisfied out of the whole revenue, as being among the highest duties of the Government. They ought not, sir, to be postponed, and only charged upon the surplus. For one, I desire for an opportunity of voting directly and at once for all such appropriations as are necessary to put the country in a state of defence and permanent security. No object can claim preference over this; and I hope the mover of the resolution will modify it by striking out what is said about surplus, and let the resolution stand as a direct declaration that the revenue of the country, so far as is necessary, ought to be appropriated for the purpose of general defence and permanent security.

I am ready to vote for that, if it takes every dollar in the treasury, and I cannot doubt that the other members of the Senate are equally ready.

On motion of Mr. CLAY, the subject was laid on the table; and it was

Ordered, That, when the Senate adjourns, it adjourn to meet on Monday.

The Senate adjourned.

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 1.

NATHAN HALE.

Amomg the petitions presented to-day was one, by Mr. NILES, of sundry citizens of New Haven, Connecticut, setting forth the extraordinary services, the great merits, and the untimely fate, of Captain Nathan Hale, of the revolutionary army, and praying that a monument may be erected to his memory.

Mr. NILES rose and said: I hold in my hand two petitions, signed by some of the first citizens of Connecticut; among the names are six gentlemen who have been members of Congress, the Chief Justice, and Governor of the State. These petitions present, for the consideration of Congress, the extraordiary services and untimely and melancholy fate of Nathan Hale, a youthful patriot of the Revolution, praying Congress to erect a monument to his memory near the sepulchre of his fathers. I understand that a similar petition was presented to the last Congress, and referred to the Committee on Military Affairs, who reported favorably in respect to the facts, and the great merits of Captain Hale; but deemed it inexpedient then to recommend any action on the part of Congress. But at this time, when a cloud hangs over our country, when we are threatened with the long sword of France; when there is some danger, I trust not much, of our being involved in war, there may perhaps be more disposition to cherish, in the breasts of American youths, that spirit of patriotism, that devotion to country, and that love of fame, which constitute so lange a portion of the means of national defence. However this may be, it is my duty to present these petitions. I had thoughts of moving for a special committee, but fearing that may be deemed as asking too much, I shall move a reference to the Committee on Military Affairs, and have to beseech that committee to give to the subject further consideration. Were it not that a petition on this subject appears to have been presented to the Senate the last session, I should suppose that honorable Senators might inquire, who is Nathan Hale? As this is a case of somewhat an unusual charac ter, I hope to be excused for offering a few suggestions on the subject.

Captain Hale was one of those youthful patriots and heroes who, when the first gun was fired in a neighboring colony, when the first blood of American freemen was shed in the streets of Lexington, abandoned

[FEB. 1, 1836.

his home, his studies, and all the prospects of peaceful pursuits, and repaired to the scene of danger. The first intelligence of these events was received in the towns on the eastern border of Connecticut on Saturday; and General Putnam received the news when ploughing in his field. This American Cincinnatus immediately left his work, and repaired to Boston, leaving his plough in the furrow, where it remained until he returned from the war.

Farther west, in the towns on Connecticut river, this news was received on the Sabbath, and during the hours of public worship. In many instances, notwithstanding the devotional character of that people, the public worship was suspended, and the meetings dissolved. In other places, individuals, more ardent than others, procured drums, and, appearing in front of the church, beat the drum as a signal to arms. Then, sir, it might be truly said that there were no Sabbaths in revolutionary times. Among the youth who were aroused by these appeals was Nathan Hale, then only twenty years of age, and a recent graduate at Yale College. He received a lieutenant's commission, and during his service at Boston was promoted to the rank of a captain, in Colonel Webb's regiment. He accompanied the American army to New York, and such was the confidence which General Washington had in his valor and discretion, that he selected him for the hazardous and difficult enterprise of passing within the enemy's lines on Long Island, to ascertain their situation and designs. This was an enterprise in which no laurels were to be won, and great risk incurred. But it was readily accepted by Captain Hale. He performed his mission, and had got nearly back to his quarters, when he was stopped by a piquet guard, and being recognised by a former friend, he betrayed him, and he was immediately hanged as a spy, without even the form of a trial. I had supposed that at that time there were no tories in Connecticut, but it seems there was one malignant enough to betray a friend and relative. Thus perished Nathan Hale, in the morning of life, and at the commencement of a career promising so much glory to himself and so much advantage to his country. Thus perished Nathan Hale, and lamenting that he had but one life to lose for his country.

I also hold a document, which I offer, to accompany these petitions. It has no particular reference to the case of Captain Hale, except so far as it goes to show the general whig spirit which at that early period prevailed in Connecticut, and which no doubt contributed to inspire in the breast of this noble youth that ardent love of liberty and that daring patriotism which led him into the field of danger, and inscribed his name on the list of the first martyrs in that glorious struggle. This document consists of copies of sundry acts and resolutions of the General Assembly of the colony, passed in May and June, 1776, which prove that before the first motion for independence was made in Congress, the colony of Connecticut had virtually separated itself from the dominion and authority of the British Crown. One is an act repealing the law in relation to high treason, by conspiring against the life or authority of the British monarch. The other changes the forms of all legal proceedings, directing that the name of his Majesty be no longer used in any writ or other civil process. The third is a resolution instructing the delegates of the colony in Congress to propose the independence of the several colonies, and the establishment of a conferation among the colonies. This was adopted in June; and, it would seem, before the subject had been brought before Congress. That, in the adoption of these resolutions, Connecticut was in advance of some of the other colonies, I would by no means assert; for I believe some of them had adopted similar resolutions; but none, I presume, had gone farther, or taken a more bold and decided

[blocks in formation]

stand. I do not find these resolutions, or any reference to them, on the journals of the old Congress; nor do I find any resolutions or instructions from any of the colonies, except that on the 27th of May, 76, it is entered on the journal, that instructions to the delegates of those States were presented from Virginia and North Carolina, which probably related to the question of independence. The instructions are not entered on the journal. As these acts and resolutions are short, I move that they be read; and they should be preserved in the archives of this Government, as they belong to the history of the Union. Perhaps we may catch some of the whig spirit of 76. Sir, the whigs of that day did not fear to arm; when their liberties were invaded, they did not count the cost of defending them. They met the crisis like men worthy to be free, and staked upon its issue their lives, their fortunes, and every thing dear to man this side the grave. The petitioners do not come here to ask of Congress to honor the memory of a distinguished son of Connecticut because the State is unwilling and unable to do it, but because they believe it belongs to Congress. He was not in the service of the State; he was not defending his native soil; he was in the service of the continent, and in that service periled and lost his life. The State has erected a monument in honor of those brave men who were massacred on the heights of Groton, after a most gallant defence. I move the reading of the petition and document, and that they be referred.

The reading and reference was agreed to accordingly.

NATIONAL DEFENCE.

On motion of Mr. HUBBARD, the Senate took up the resolution submitted by Mr. BENTON for appropriating the surplus revenue to the national defence.

Mr. BUCHANAN, who had the floor, rose and addressed the Senate as follows:

[SENATE.

matized as most unusual-most astonishing-most sur. prising. And, finally, to cap the climax, it has been proclaimed that the passage of such an appropriation would be virtually to create a dictator, and to surrender the power of the purse and the sword into the hands of the President. I voted for that appropriation under the highest convictions of public duty, and I now intend to defend that vote against all these charges.

In examining the circumstances which not only justi fied this appropriation, but rendered it absolutely necessary, I am forced into the discussion of the French question. We have been told, that if we should go to war with France, we are the authors of that war. The Senator from New Jersey has declared that it will be produced by the boastful vanity of one man, the petulance of another, and the fitful violence of a third. It would not be difficult to conjecture who are the individuals to whom the Senator alludes. He has also informed us that, in the event of such a war, the guilt which must rest somewhere will be tremendous. Now, sir, I shall undertake to prove that scarcely an example exists in history of a powerful and independent nation having suffered such wrongs and indignities as we have done from France with so much patience and forbearance. If France should now resort to arms-if our defenceless seacoast should be plundered-if the blood of our citizens should be shed-the responsibility of the Senate, to use the language of the gentleman, will be tremendous. I shall not follow the example of the Senator, and say their guilt, because that would be to attribute to them an evil intention, which I believe did not exist.

In discussing this subject, I shall first present to the view of the Senate the precise attitude of the two nations towards each other, when the appropriation of three millions was refused, and then examine the reasons which have been urged to justify this refusal. After having done so, I shall exhibit our relations with France as they exist at the present moment, for the purpose of proving that we ought now to adopt the resolutions of the gentleman from Missouri, and grant all necessary appropriations for the defence of the country.

In discussing this subject it is not my intention to follow the fortification bill, either into the chamber of the committee of conference, or into the hall of the House of Representatives. It is not my purpose to explain the confusion which then existed, and which always must exist after midnight on the last evening of the session. I shall contend that the Senate ought to have voted the three millions; that the fortification bill ought to have passed the Senate with this amendment; and that, therefore, the Senate is responsible, not only for the loss of this appropriation, but for that of the entire bill. What, then, was the attitude in which we stood towards France at the moment when the Senate rejected this appropriation for the defence of the country? What, at that moment, was known, or ought to have been known, in regard to this question, by every Senator on this floor?

Mr. President: I am much better pleased with the first resolution offered by the Senator from Missouri, [Mr. BENTON,] since he has modified it upon the sugges tion of the Senator from Tennessee; [Mr. GRUNDY.] When individuals have more money than they know how to expend, they often squander it foolishly. The remark applies, perhaps, with still greater force to nations. When our treasury is overflowing, Congress, who are but mere trustees for the people, ought to be especially on their guard against wasteful expenditures of the public money. The surplus can be applied to some good and useful purpose. I am willing to grant all that may be necessary for the public defence, but no more. I am therefore pleased that the resolution has assumed its present form. The true question involved in this discussion is, on whom ought the responsibility to rest for having adjourned on the 3d of March last without providing for the defence of the country? There can be no doubt a fearful responsibility rests somewhere. For my own part, I should have been willing to leave the decision of this question to our constituents. I am a man of peace, and dislike the crimination and recrimination which this discussion must necessarily produce; but it is vain to regret what can- The justice of our claims upon France are now adnot now be avoided. The friends of the administration|mitted by all mankind. Our generosity was equal to have been attacked, and we must now defend ourselves. I deem it necessary, therefore, to state the reasons why I voted, on the 3d of March last, in favor of the appropriation of three millions for the defence of the country, and why I glory in that vote. The language used by Senators in reference to this appropriation has been very strong. It has been denounced as a violation of the constitution. It has been declared to be such a measure as would not have received the support of the minority, had they believed it could prevail, and that they would be held responsible for it. It has been stig

their justice. When she was crushed in the dust by Europe in arms, when her cities were garrisoned by a foreign foe, when her independence was trampled under foot, we refused to urge our claims. This was due to our ancient ally. It was due to our grateful remembrance of the days of other years. The testimony of Lafayette conclusively establishes this fact. In the Chamber of Deputies, on the 13th of June, 1833, he declared that we had refused to unite with the enemies of France in urging our claims in 1814 and 1815; and that, if we had done so, these claims would then have

SENATE.]

National Defence.

been settled. This circumstence will constitute one of the brightest pages of our history.

Was the sum secured to our injured fellow-citizens by the treaty of the 4th of July, 1831, more than they had a right to demand? Let the report of our Committee on Foreign Relations, at the last session, answer this question. They concur entirely with the President in the statement he had made in his message, that it was absolutely certain the indemnity fell far short of the actual amount of our just claims, independently of damages and interest for the detention; and that it was well known at the time that, in this respect, the settlement involved a sacrifice. But there is now no longer room for any conjecture or doubt upon this subject. The commissioners under the treaty have closed their labors. From the very nature of their constitution, it became the interest of every claimant to reduce the other claims as much as possible, so that his Own dividend might thus be increased. After a laborious and patient investigation, the claims which have been allowed by the commissioners amount to $9,352,193 47. Each claimant will receive but little more than half his principal at the end of a quarter of a century, after losing all the interest.

[FEB. 1, 1836.

purpose which have characterized all our negotiations. Even the established forms of diplomacy contain much unmeaning language, which is perfectly understood by every body, and deceives nobody. If ministers have avowed their sincerity, and their ardent desire to execute the treaty, to deny them, on our part, would be insulting, and might lead to the most unpleasant consequences. In forming an estimate of their intentions, therefore, every wise man will regard their actions rather than their words. By their deeds shall they be known. Let us, then, test the French Government by this touchstone of truth.

The ratifications of the treaty of the 4th of July, 1831, were exchanged at Washington the 2d February, 1832. When this treaty arrived in Paris the French Chambers were in session, and they continued in session for several weeks. They did not adjourn until the 19th April. No time more propitious for presenting this treaty to the Chambers could have been selected than that very moment. Europe then was, as I believe it still is, one vast magazine of gunpowder. It was generally believed that the Polish revolution was the spark which would produce the explosion. There was imminent danger of a continental war, in which France, to preWhy, then, has this treaty remained without execu- serve her existence, would have to put forth all her ention on the part of France until this day? Our Com-ergies. Russia, Prussia, and Austria, were armed, and mittee on Foreign Relations, at the last session, de- ready for the battle. It was, then, the clear policy of clared their conviction that the King of France "had France to be at a good understanding with the United invariably, on all suitable occasions, manifested an anx- States. If it had been the ardent desire of the King's ious desire faithfully and honestly to fulfil the engage- Government to carry into effect the stipulations of the ments contracted under his authority and his name." treaty, they would have presented it to the Chambers They say that "the opposition to the execution of the before their adjournment. This would undoubtedly treaty and the payment of our just claims does not have been the course pursued by any President of the proceed from the King's Government, but from a ma- United States under similar circumstances. But the jority in the Chamber of Deputies." treaty was not presented. I freely admit that this omission, standing by itself, might be explained by the near approach of the adjournment at the time the treaty arrived from Washington. It is one important link, however, in the chain of circumstances, which cannot be omitted.

cent.

Now, sir, it is my purpose to contest this opinion, and to show, as I think I can conclusively, that it is not a just inference from the facts. And here, to prevent all possible misconstruction, either on this side or on the other side of the Atlantic, (if by any accident my humble remarks should ever travel to such a distance,) per- The Government of the United States proceeded immit me to say that I am solely responsible for them my-mediately to execute their part of the treaty. By the self. These opinions were in a great degree formed act of the 13th July, 1832, the duties on French wines whilst I was in a foreign land, and were there freely ex- were reduced according to its terms, to take effect from pressed upon all suitable occasions. I was then beyond the day of the exchange of the ratifications. At the the sphere of party influence, and felt only as an Ameri- same session, the Congress of the United States, impelcan citizen. Is it not then manifest, to use the lan- led, no doubt, by their kindly feelings towards France, guage of Mr. Livingston, in his note to the Count de which had been roused into action by what they beRigny of the 3d of August, 1834, that the French Gov- lieved to be a final and equitable settlement of all our ernment have never appreciated the importance of the disputes, voluntarily reduced the duty upon silks coming subject at its just value? There are two modes in from this side of the Cape of Good Hope to five per which the King could have manifested this anxious de- cent., whilst those from beyond were fixed at ten per sire faithfully to fulfil the treaty. These are by words And, at the next session, on the 2d of March, and by actions. When a man's words and his actions 1833, this duty of five per cent. was taken off altogethcorrespond, you have the highest evidence of his sin- er; and ever since French silks have been admitted cerity. Even then he may be a hypocrite in the eyes into our country free of duty. There is now, in fact, a of that Being before whom the fountains of human ac- discriminating duty of ten per cent. in their favor, over tion are unveiled. But when a man's words and his silks from beyond the Cape of Good Hope. actions are at variance; when he promises, and does not perform, or even attempt to perform; when "he speaks the word of promise to the ear, and breaks it to the hope," the whole world will at once pronounce him insincere. If this be true in the transactions of common life, with how much more force does it apply to the intercourse between diplomatists? The deceitfulness of diplomacy has become almost a proverb. In Europe, the talent of overreaching gives a minister the glory of diplomatic skill. The French school has been distinguished in this art. To prove it I need only mention the name of Talleyrand. The American school teaches far different lessons. On this our success has, in a great degree, depended. The skilful diplomatists of Europe are foiled by the downright honesty and directness of

What has France gained by these measures in duties on her wines and her silks, which she would otherwise have been bound to pay? I have called upon the Secretary of the Treasury for the purpose of ascertaining the amount. I now hold in my hand a tabular statement, prepared at my request, which shows that, had the duties remained what they were at the date of the ratification of the treaty, these articles, since that time, would have paid into the treasury, on the 30th of September, 1834, the sum of $3,061,525. Judging from the large importations which have since been made, I feel no hesitation in declaring it as my opinion that, at the present moment, these duties would amount to more than the whole indemnity which France has engaged to pay to our fellow-citizens. Before the conclusion of the ten

[blocks in formation]

years mentioned in the treaty, she will have been freed from the payment of duties to an amount considerably above twelve millions of dollars.

By the same act of the 13th July, 1832, a board of commissioners was established to receive, examine, and decide, the claims of our citizens under the treaty, who were to meet on the 1st day of the following August. This act also directed the Secretary of the Treasury to cause the several instalments, with the interest thereon, payable to the United States in virtue of the convention, to be received from the French Government, and transferred to the United States in such manner as he may deem best. In this respect the provisions of the act correspond with the terms of the treaty, which prescribe that the money shall be paid into the hands of such person or persons as shall be authorized to receive it by the Government of the United States. Were the French Government immediately informed of all these proceedings? Who can doubt it? Certainly no one at all acquainted with the vigilance and zeal of their diplomatic agents.

The 19th of November, 1832, the day for the meeting of the Chambers, at length arrived. Every American was anxious to know what the King would say in his speech concerning the treaty. No one could doubt but that he would strongly recommend to the Chambers to make the appropriation of twenty-five millions of francs, the first instalment of which would become due on the 2d of February following. All, however, which the speech contained in relation to the treaty is comprised in the following sentences: "I have also ordered my ministers to communicate to you the treaty concluded on the 4th of July, 1831, between my Government and that of the United States of America. This arrangement puts an end to the reciprocal claims of the two countries." Now, sir, I am well aware of the brevity and non-committal character of King's speeches in Europe. I know the necessity which exists there for circumspection and caution. But, making every fair allow ance for these considerations, I may at least say that the speech does not manifest an anxious desire to carry the treaty into effect. What might the King have said; what ought he to have said; what might he have said, had he felt this anxious desire? It might all have been embraced in a single additional sentence, such as the following: "The Congress of the United States have already provided for the admission of French wines into their ports upon the terms of this treaty, and have voluntarily reduced their duties upon French silks; I must therefore request you to grant me the means of discharging the first instalment, which will become due, under this treaty, on the 2d day of February next." The King did not even ask the Chambers for the money necessary to redeem the faith of France. In this respect, the debt due to the United States is placed in striking contrast to the Greek loan. Immediately after the two sentences of the speech which I have already quoted, the King proceeds: "You will likewise be called to examine the treaty by which Prince Otho, of Bavaria, is called to the throne of Greece. I shall have to request from you the means of guarantying, in union with my allies, a loan, which is indispensable for the es tablishment of the new State founded by our cares and concurrence." The establishment of the new State founded by our cares and concurrence! Russia, sir, has made greater advances by her skill in diplomacy than by her vast physical power. Unless I am much mistaken, the creation of this new State, with Prince Otho as its King, will accomplish the very object which it was the interest and purpose of France to defeat. It will, in the end, virtually convert Greece into a Russian province. I could say much more on the subject, but I forbear. My present purpose is merely to present, in

[SENATE.

a striking view, the difference between the King's language in relation to our treaty, and that treaty which placed the son of the King of Bavaria on the throne of Greece.

Time passed away, and the 2d February, 1833, the day when the first instalment under the treaty became due, arrived. It was to be paid "into the hands of such person or persons as shall be authorized by the Government of the United States to receive it." The money on that day ought to have been ready at Paris; but strange, but most wonderful as it may appear, although the Chambers had been in session from the 19th of November until the 2d of February, the King's Government had never even presented the treaty to the Chambers; had never even asked them for a grant of the money necessary to fulfil its engagements. Well might Mr. Livingston say that they had never properly appreciated the importance of the subject.

The Government of the United States, knowing that the King in his speech had promised to present the treaty to the Chambers, and knowing that they had been in session since November, might have taken means to demand the first instalment at Paris on the 2d day of February. Strictly speaking, it was their duty to do so, acting as trustees for the claimants. But they did not draw a bill of exchange at Washington for the first instalment, until five days after it had become due at Paris. This bill was not presented to the French Government for payment until the 23d of March, 1833. Even at that day the French ministry had not presented either the treaty, or a bill to carry it into effect, to the Chambers. The faith of France was thus violated by the neglect of the King's Government long before any bill was presented. They, and not the Chambers, are responsible for this violation. It was even impossible for the Chambers to prevent it. Had this treaty and bill been laid before them in time to have enabled them to redeem the faith of France, the loyalty of the French character would never have permitted them to be guilty of a positive violation of national honor. The faith of the nation was forfeited before they were called upon to act. The responsibility was voluntarily assumed by the King's ministers. The Chambers are clear of it. Besides, the ministry were all powerful with the Chambers during that session. They carried every thing they urged. Even the bill providing the means of guarantying the Greek loan became a law. Can it, then, for a single moment, be believed that, if a bill to carry into effect our treaty--a treaty securing such important advantages to France-had been presented at an early period of the session, and had been pressed by the ministry, they would have failed in the attempt? At all events, it was their imperative duty to pursue this course. The aspect of the political horizon in Europe was still lowering. There was still imminent danger of a general war. France was still in a position to make her dread any serious misunderstanding with the United States.

After all this, on the 26th March, the Duke de Broglie, in a note to Mr. Niles, our chargé d'affaires at Paris, stated that it was "a source of regret, and, indeed, of astonishment, that the Government of the United States did not think proper to have an understanding with that of France before taking this step." What step? The demand of an honest debt, almost two months after it had been due, under a solemn treaty. Indeed, the Duke, judging from the tone of his note, appears almost to have considered the demand an insult. To make a positive engagement to pay a fixed sum on a particular day, and, when that sum is demanded nearly two months after, to express astonishment to the creditor, would, in private life, be considered trifling and evasive.

« AnteriorContinuar »