On this point there can be no doubt, whether we regard it in the light of common sense, reason, duty, Constitution, or authority.

According to reason, any person intrusted with the guardianship of particular interests becomes personally responsible with regard to them, especially if he undertakes to barter them against other interests for which he is personally…

The soil of the Rebellion is soaked with patriot blood, its turf is bursting with patriot dead.

Therefore, for the sake of that flag, and for the sake of the brave men that bore it, now sleeping where no trumpet of battle can wake them, stand by the flag.

Thus, an attorney, sacrificing the claims of his clients for the release of his own personal obligations, becomes personally liable; and so also the trustee, appropriating the trust fund for any personal interest, becomes personally liable.

Duty, also, in harmony with reason, enjoins upon Government the protection of citizens against foreign spoliations and the prosecution of their claims to judgment.

On this view of the case, it would seem that the merchants have an equitable claim for indemnities from the United States.… It follows, then, that, if the relinquishment had not been made, the present French Government would be responsible.

Under that provision is not this right converted into one that we are under the most solemn obligation to satisfy? … To lessen the public expenditure is a great legislative duty; to lessen it at the expense of justice, public faith, and…

They follow its teaching, when they adopt the conclusion, in which so many previous committees have already joined, that these individual claims were originally just, and that the Government of the United States, having appropriated them…

The contrary assertion is inconsistent with (1.) the facts of the case, (2.) the declarations of the two parties, and (3.) the nature of the Convention.

Doubtless, claims bearing the open cause of war, and failing to be recognized in the treaty of peace, are annulled; for the treaty is the settlement of pending controversies between the two powers.

But the claims in question were not the open cause even of the anomalous relations between the United States and France, and they did not fail to have such recognition in the convention terminating those relations as to exclude all idea…

One power may, in its own discretion, suspend diplomatic and commercial intercourse with another; it may assume all the harness of war, and even use force in retaliation, retortion, or reprisal; but all this falls short of war, especially…

If war be the extinguisher of claims, it is because, in theory, the claimant is supposed to have opportunity for reparation by seizing the property of the enemy, wherever he can find it on the high seas.

But no reprisals against France were authorized by the United States; no war on private property was permitted; so that the only principle on which war is the extinguisher of claims fails to apply.

On the part of the United States the declarations are explicit that war did not exist, although it seemed imminent.

Jay’s treaty with Great Britain, the Convention of 1800 did not purport to be a treaty of peace; nor, indeed, as first executed, did it pretend to settle the questions between the two powers, except by postponing them to “a convenient…

The American Senate admitted as much, when it limited the duration of the Convention to eight years, which, had war previously existed, would have turned the Convention into a truce.

Strange, that, while so utterly untenable, it should gain a single supporter!

Even if France had affirmed that war existed, yet the United States constantly denied it at the time, both by legislative and executive acts; so that our Government is obviously estopped against its recognition, even if it fails to feel…

It is difficult to understand how such a pretext was ever made; but the history of this question shows the strange shifts of opposition, especially when without restraint from knowledge of the subject.

Tell me not of “failure.” There can be but one failure, and that is the failure to make an end of Slavery; for on this righteous consummation all else depends.

It will be observed how carefully the claims for spoliation were excluded from the benefit of this provision, which is limited positively to “debts.” Though apparently plain, the French Government found difficulties in its execution.

But such revival, instead of being “in compliance” with that article, or, according to the corresponding French words of the Convention, en exécution of that article, would be in direct contradiction of it.

Let us at all hazards prevent the extension of Slavery and the increase of the Slave Power.