persons were enjoined to observe and fulfil the same, “and every clause and article thereof.”[203] One aspect of this result cannot fail to arrest attention. Here was a release of all outstanding obligations of the United States under those famous treaties which assured National Independence. The joy with which those heralds of triumph were first welcomed in camp and Congress has been portrayed; and now a kindred joy prevailed, when the country, anxious and sorely tried, was at last set free from their obligations, and American commerce, venturing forth again from its banishment, brought back its treasures to pour them into the lap of the people. Strange fate! There was joy at the birth of these treaties, and joy also at their death. But it was because their death had become to us, like their birth, a source of national strength and security. Thus closed a protracted controversy, where each power was persistent to the last. Nothing could be more simple than the adjustment, and nothing more equitable, _if we regard the two Governments only_. The claims of each were treated as a _set-off_ to the claims of the other, and _mutual releases_ were interchanged, so that each, while losing what it claimed, triumphed over its adversary. But the triumph of the United States was at the expense of American citizens. Nothing is without price; and new duties, originating in this triumph, sprang into being. IV. ASSUMPTION OF CLAIMS BY THE UNITED STATES, AND SUBSTITUTION OF UNITED STATES FOR FRANCE. Then came the assumption by our Government of the original obligations of France, and its complete _substitution_ for France _as the responsible debtor_. This liability was distinctly foreseen by the American plenipotentiaries, Messrs. Pinckney, Marshall, and Gerry, as appears in their words, under date of October 22, 1797: “We observed to M. Bellamy, that none of our vessels had what the French termed a _rôle d’équipage_, and that, if we were to surrender all the property which had been taken from our citizens in cases where their vessels were not furnished with such a rôle, _the Government would be responsible to its citizens for the property so surrendered_, since it would be impossible to undertake to assert that there was any plausibility in the allegation that our treaty required a _rôle d’équipage_.”[204] This admission, so important in this discussion, was so clearly in conformity with correct principles, that it was naturally made, even without special instructions.