“Thus the Government _bartered_ the _just claims_ of our merchants on France, to obtain a relinquishment of the French claim for a restoration of the old treaties, especially the burdensome Treaty of Alliance, by which we were bound to guaranty the French territories in America. 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. Consequently, the relinquishment by our own Government having been made in consideration that the French Government relinquished its demand for a renewal of the old treaties, _then it seems clear, that, as our Government applied the merchants’ property to buy off those old treaties, the sums so applied should be reimbursed_.”[207] Chief Justice Marshall, who was one of the plenipotentiaries that attempted to secure payment from France, and afterward, as Secretary of State, countersigned the proclamation of President Adams first promulgating the Convention of 1800, has borne testimony similar to that of Mr. Pickering. In conversation with Mr. Preston, of South Carolina, he said, that, “having been connected with the events of that period, and conversant with the circumstances under which the claims arose, _he was, from his own knowledge, satisfied that there was the strongest obligation on the Government to compensate the sufferers by the French spoliations_.”[208] Hon. B. Watkins Leigh, an ancient Senator from Virginia, relates that the same eminent authority said in his presence, “distinctly and positively, that _the United States ought to make payment of these claims_.” This declaration made a particular impression upon Mr. Leigh, because he had been unfavorable to the claims. 7. The obligation of the United States may be inferred also from _the declared justice_ of the claims which had been renounced. On this point the authority is equally explicit. Of course, in urging them upon France, earnestly and most assiduously, by successive plenipotentiaries, there was a plain adoption of them as just. But even after their abandonment they continued to be recognized as just. Hon. Robert R. Livingston, plenipotentiary at Paris, in his correspondence shortly after the abandonment, shows his discontent. In a note to the Minister of Exterior Relations he speaks compendiously of “the payment for illegal captures, with damages and indemnities on one side, and the renewal of the Treaty of 1778 on the other, as of _equivalent value_.”[209] And in a despatch, under date of January 13, 1802, he says he has “always considered the sacrifices we have made of an immense claim as _a dead loss_.”[210] But this “dead loss” fell upon “individuals,” and not upon the “nation.”