“Whence comes this difference of 57,000 between the arms said to be sent from here and those which were received in France, if in fact the report of M. Riant signifies that they have only received a total of 368,000? How explain that there were 425,000 put on the bills of lading, and that the price of these was paid in New York?” Now this discrepancy may be traced exclusively to French agents, so that our subordinates shall not in any way be involved; but when we consider all the circumstances of this transaction, it affords grounds of inquiry. But there is another witness on this head, not before mentioned in this debate. I have here an extract from the official report of M. de Bellonet, the French _Chargé d’Affaires_ at Washington, made to his Government on this very question of losses down to a certain period. His language is explicit: “The _dry loss_ to the Treasury of France must have been about $1,500,000, or seven million francs.” This, be it remembered, is only a partial report down to a certain period. Now there is nothing in this report to charge this “dry loss” upon our officials. It may be that it was all absorbed by the intermediate agents. But taken in connection with the telegram of Squire and the abundant letter of Mr. Remington, it leaves a suspicion at least adverse to our officials. Sir, let me be understood. I do not believe that any inquiry by any committee can give back to France any of the enormous sums she has lost. They have already gone beyond recall into the portentous mass of her terrible sacrifices destined to be an indefinite mortgage on that interesting country. Not for the sake of France or of any French claimant do I propose inquiry, but for our sake, for the sake of our own country. We read of that vast Serbonian bog “where armies whole have sunk.” It is important to know if there is any such bog anywhere about our Ordnance Office, where millions whole have sunk. Investigation is the order of the day. Already in France, amid all the anxieties of her distracted condition, these purchases of arms have occupied much attention. As far back as last April, the “Soir,” a journal at Versailles, where the Convention was sitting, called for parliamentary inquiry. Its language was strong:-- “A parliamentary inquiry made in full day can alone establish either the culpability of some or the perfect honorableness of others.” And the same French organ added:-- “The Chamber, in consigning this matter to its pigeonholes, refused satisfaction to an awakened public morality.” There is, then, in France an awakened public morality, as we hope there is also in the United States, which demands investigation where there is suspicion of corrupt practices. The French Chamber has instituted inquiry. * * * * *