For the Union.
{"newspaper_name": "The daily union.", "edition": "01", "page": "p3", "byline": ""}
{"character_count": 4205, "word_count": 714, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9632999897003174], "ccnet_perplexity": [1367.300048828125], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}

The speech of Hon. John M Clayton, published
in last nights Union, instead Of disproving the pro-
priety Of the Veto furnishes matter highly jusuf-
catory Of IT, Read the following account Of the ae-
ton which he says Congress took IN 1902 upon the
claims for French spoatlons--aetlon, be IL remem-
bered, which had Immediately after the treaty
with France was ratifed-when the merits of the
claims were knowD-and when they were pushed
upon the attention of Congress by the heated fresh
y-despolled, recently tly-made'poor claimants them
selves;


"on the llth of March, Mr.. Griswold laid the
following motion on the tables


l., "Rssoigss, That i is proper 70 make provision by
law towards ndemnyng the merchants ofheU ned States
Tor losses sustained by them from French spoaions the
claims for which losses have been enouneed BY the FINAL
ratification Of the convention with France Pubshed by
proclamation Of the President OF the United States.
'on the ensuing day, motion made by Mr..
Grswod to take up this motion for consideration,
was lost without debate-yeas 35, nays 49,"
IL is thus seen that the House refused TO even
consider a resolution declaring


lst, That It was proper To pay the claims now just
vetoed; and


I'd, That the claims against France had been re-
nounesd by the United States


Not satisfied with this decision of the House, the
claimants succeeded In persuadlng their congress
siona friends to make another effort for them on the
l5th-four days Afterwards. On that day long
debate-"whIeh continued until the usual hour Of





luton; and IL was (after this long and able debate)
defeated bya largely increased majortyl The vote
stood yeas 80, nays 54-l6 additional members
voting against the claim, and refusing to vote for
the resolution qftsr discussion who had voted for il
before discussion had been had!


Mr.. Editor, if these claims are to be paid, latter
such an exposition, furnished by Mr. Clayton him
self for the more the veto is discussed, the more
clearly does It's justice appear,) then let all property
ever destroyed by any public enemy likewise be
paid for.


Public enemies, upon sea and land, including In
dams and pirates, have destroyed amount Of
property since July 4, l776, worth at least
equal to one-haf Of the amount Of the debt Of Eng
land. Shall the United States issue bonds in pay
ment Of such losses and thus create public debt Of
five hundred millions OF dollars find yet this Is
ohat the rhgs propose, unless they willing to pay
for property destroyed by one enemy, and not for
that destroyed by anotheri they may choose the
horn Of the dilemma which they like best.


The plea which the lntelligencer puts in this
morning, about private claims not being examined
by the President is unworthy of that print


The rule is to pay for any property belonging to
individuals taken for public by the United
States Whether Congress pays too much or too
little to petitioners in such cases. the President
may be justly supposed unable in all cases TO Ir-
quire.


But when Congress proposes to add another "eiass
Of cases" TO the list Of applicants worthy Of indem-





Presld ent 10 decide whether he can properly sane
ton the innOudiiOn proposed.


Mr. Polk has decided that he will not sanction
the class to which the French claims belong.
The question is, therefore, distinctly put to the
lntellgencer, whether It can point TO any law enact
ed under any administration for payment out Of the
treasury Of spoations upon American property
which were committed by any nation tohaisoeper?
II negative answer is given, then tohy should
those persons who have been desroiled by France
be indemnifed, when we uniformly refuse to indem-
Nifty, from our national funds, those citizens
who have been despoed by any other nationl To
have sanctioned the law, would have been to have
sanctioned a gross departure from the uniform
usages Of the nation, and to have committed very
partial and unjustifable act, unless he would have
consented TO create national debt half as large
that Of Great Britain, with the bonds creative of
which to pay every other individual who has been
pIundered of his property by other nations.


VETO.
WAsHMGToN, August 81, 1876.