“The Committee think it is sufficiently shown that the claim for indemnities was surrendered _as an equivalent_ for the discharge of the United States from its heavy national obligations, and for the damages that were due for their preceding non-performance of them. If so, can there be a doubt, independent of the constitutional provision, that the sufferers are entitled to indemnity? 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 constitutional right would be a crime. Conceiving that all these require that relief should be granted to the petitioners, they pray leave to bring in a bill for that purpose.”[213] This list of authorities may be closed with that of the Emperor Napoleon, who, at St. Helena, dictated to Gourgaud the following testimony:-- “The suppression of this article [2d of the Convention] at once put an end to the privileges which France had possessed by the Treaty of 1778, _and annulled the just claims which America might have made for injuries done in time of peace_. This was exactly what the First Consul had proposed to himself, in fixing these two points _as equiponderating each other_.”[214] Thus the head of the French Government at the time of the Convention unites with the statesmen of our own country in attaching value to these claims. * * * * * To all this array of argument and authority the Committee see no answer. 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 for a “national” purpose, was substituted for France as debtor. OBJECTIONS. Assuming the obligation of the United States, the question occurs, What sum should be applied by Congress to its liquidation? But before proceeding to this point, the Committee will glance at what is urged sometimes against this obligation, so far at least as they are aware of opposition. * * * * * Objections of a preliminary character have been already considered; but there are others belonging properly to this stage of the inquiry.