we say, the present government of France sanctions and adopts the policy of Napoleon, and the question of redress remains what it would have been, had he continued to reign.

The payment by France of the claims of our merchants would be no unexampled stretch of liberality, but an act of justice, such as was promptly rendered by England in 1796, and extorted from Spain, by the late Florida treaty. That entire province, territorially of immense value to the United States, was ceded to us, principally as an indemnity for our merchants. Under the commission in England for liquidating the claims of our merchants, subsequent to the conclusion of Jay's treaty, twelve hundred thousand pounds sterling, or nearly five millions and a half of dollars, were allowed and paid. These precedents would take away all appearance of submission from the act of the French government, in satisfying the claims of American citizens; and we really see no reason why a less rigorous measure of justice should be expected from her, than from Spain and England.

Finally, we apprehend a mistaken impression prevails, in this country, as to the plea, on which France evades this act of justice. We believe it to be the common opinion, that the present government of France claims not to be bound to make reparation for the acts of the late government. Though it is true that loose suggestions to this effect, were at first dropped by the French ministers, going rather to the hardness of the case than the want of obligation, yet we cannot find that this plea was ever seriously and formally insisted upon. On the contrary, different parts of the claim have been allowed to be just, by successive French ministers; and no part distinctly maintained not to be so. The Duke of Richelieu was willing to make compensation for vessels destroyed at sea, and the Viscount Montmorency thought the Antwerp claimants entitled to indemnification. There is some appearance of an attempt to maintain the validity of the Berlin and Milan decrees, which, however, would undoubtedly be dissipated, on a very short illustration of their inconsistency with the provisions of the convention of 1800, and with the principles of the law of nations. And even should their validity be maintained by France (admitted by the United States it never will be), the number of cases fairly and regularly condemned under them, is the smallest part of those, for which compensation is asked. The greatest havoc took place, under their retrospective interpretation, under the decrees of Bayonne and Rambouillet, and by means of extrajudicial acts of the govern

ment.

But any general pretension, that the present government of France is not bound by the acts of the former government is effectually abandoned, in setting up the very cause of delay which now impedes the liquidation of the claims. Advantages claimed by France, and refused by the United States, under the Louisiana treaty, are made the pretence of withholding indemnification from our citizens. Now the acquisition of Louisiana from Spain, and its cession to the United States, were the acts of Napoleon. This province formed no part of France, when the Bourbons were forced to leave the throne. Its acquisition and its transfer were solely the work of Napoleon. How then could the government of France insist pertinaciously on the enjoyment of privileges alleged to be secured to it by one of his acts; and pretend to hold itself not responsible for others. No such pretension is, in fact, set up; and in the words of the President of the United States, at the opening of the last session of Congress, 'the justice of these claims has not been, as it cannot be, denied.' The first plea of the French government was for time. France was stated to be overwhelmed, by the pressure of the late enemies of Napoleon. The United States generously forbore to press their demands, till the European powers had asked all they wished, and obtained all they asked. We then modestly put in our pretensions, and were told there was a tonnage question, which must first be settled. The convention of commerce is negotiated. We again mentioned the claims, and were required first to adjust the eighth article of the Louisiana convention. And in this posture the matter now stands.

We undertake not to foresee with what success negotiation can be any further pursued on this subject. Our own opinion has long been that Congress alone can negotiate upon it, and that in a more operative way than the exchange of diplomatic notes. We rely, however, on the prudence and spirit of the Executive, and doubt not the honor of the country, and the rights of our fellow citizens, will be duly and effectually asserted. Meantime it would appear, that a serious consideration of the subject is contemplated by Congress. The resolution, adopted by the House of Representatives towards the close of the last session, invites the citizens of the United States to report a statement of their claims on all foreign governments to the departVOL. XXIII. NO. 53.

53

ment of State, and requires that department to submit to the House at its next session, a schedule of all the cases, which shall have been thus reported. With such a statement before Congress and the people, we apprehend it will not be easy to refrain from some energetic steps for procuring redress.

ART. X.-1. Remarks, critical and historical, on an Article in the Fortyseventh Number of the North American Review, relating to Count Pulaski; addressed to the Readers of the North American Review. By the AUTHOR of the 'Sketches of the Life of Greene.' Charleston, S. C. 8vo. pp. 37.

2. A Reply to Judge Johnson's Remarks on an Article in the North American Review, relating to Count Pulaski. By PAUL BENTALOU; Author of 'Pulaski Vindicated. Baltimore. 8vo. pp. 41.

2

We know of few authors more unfortunate than Judge Johnson, or whose case more sincerely deserves the commiseration of the friends of letters, and the patrons of literary enterprise. It is now about four years since he published his great work, entitled 'Sketches of the Life of General Greene,' in two quarto volumes, and in a style of typography much above the common standard of American printing. For such an effort as this, at once to illustrate a most important portion of American history, and encourage the arts, the author very naturally flat tered himself, that he should meet with the applause of his countrymen. But from his own account, in his later writings, it would seem, that no man's expectations were ever more sadly disappointed. His hopes, so fresh and strong at first, have been withered in the bud, and have shrunk away from the chilling breath of public disfavor. The gantlet of authorship was never before run with so much peril, nor terminated with such disastrous consequences. D'Israeli himself would be puzzled to find matter for a more copious chapter of miseries.

The author complains of being attacked from all quarters; newspapers, pamphlets, periodical journals, and formidable volumes, have teemed with censures upon his work, and this not in one part of the country only, but in every part. His facts have been questioned, his style criticised, many of his statements denied, his way of writing history condemned, and his talents for such an undertaking more than doubted. One would think, that, amidst such universal testimonies of disapprobation, these spontaneous strictures from all points of the compass, concurring to the same end, would raise at least a slight shadow of suspicion in the mind of an author, that they might not be wholly without foundation. But not so with Judge Johnson. The possibility of an error on his part seems never to have entered his thoughts. He imagines the whole world to be his enemies, who have seized upon this opportunity, in violation of truth, honesty, and justice, to pour out upon him the vials of their critical indignation. In opinions, which differ from his own, he ' discovers plainly the hand of personal enmity;' whoever dares to express such opinions, manifests a 'sheer ignorance of revolutionary history;' he is charged with 'credulity, ignorance, or deliberate imposition;' he is guilty of putting forth 'paltry pretexts,' and of saying things 'not worthy of the most common understanding;' he lends himself to an attempt to falsify history, and to extenuate or excuse crime;' he maintains positions, which none 'but an idiot could be found to contend about,' and which 'carry with them the most insulting imputations, both on the researches and the intellects of his readers;' he is 'a gasconader,' utters 'calumnies,' makes 'vain boasts and bold attempts at imposition,' aims 'most insidious blows, and, in short, tells tales 'in which there cannot be one word of truth. But we forbear. are some of the choice epithets, which the biographer of Greene finds it in his heart to apply to what he calls that 'vainest of the mortal race,' the critics and reviewers, and to those officious sticklers for veracity in history, and meaning in language, who have taken the trouble to read his work, and to remark upon its character. These are all enemies, sworn enemies, and seek for nothing but to indulge their malicious propensities.

Such

Now, if it were our business to inquire, we should like to be informed, how one luckless author has contrived to stir up such a host of enemies. The case is an extraordinary one. In our state of society, personal enmity against those of whom we have no personal knowledge, is by no means a common thing. When a man publishes a book, he makes a demand on the public; he calls on the people to purchase, read, and judge. It is hard, indeed, if readers cannot have the liberty, after this tax upon them, to exercise their understanding, and express their opinions freely, and this without the imputation of enmity to the author, or subjecting themselves to be branded with illnatured epithets. The world will soon be weary of buying and reading at this rate. It must be remembered, that the reader, as well as the writer, is disposed to have his own opinion and maintain it; and when an author, whether from a too great sensitiveness, or a jealousy natural to his temper, chooses to take offence at such a liberty, use harsh and taunting language, and persist in affirming that to be right and true, which all other men declare to be erroneous, it cannot be supposed, that he will gain many new friends, or strengthen the attachment of old ones, by such a proceeding.

That our readers may go along with us the more easily, in the remarks about to be made, we shall first briefly state the case before us. When Judge Johnson published his 'Life of Greene,' it was reviewed, as our evil stars would have it, in this Journal.* Not long afterward, certain distant and half audible murmurs indicated to us, that the author was less enraptured with our estimate of his literary claims, than our good nature might incline us to wish, and that he was nowise backward in expressing his distrust of our critical sagacity, and even of our motives. Possessing, as we do, the tender feelings of reviewers, this intelligence could not of course but give us a momentary uneasiness. But what could be done, except to let it pass, like the complaints of other authors, who suffer themselves to be disappointed and angry, when the world will not discover their merits, and when reviewers are so cold blooded, as to praise only what is good, and to expose faults? Soon after this review, a pamphlet came before the world, purporting to be a vindication of Count Pulaski, from a censure made by the author of the Life of Greene,' against the military character of that celebrated Polish chief. That pamphlet we also read, and was struck with the honest zeal, and force of argument, with which a veteran friend of Pulaski defended his military fame, and rebutted the offensive charge.

Another review grew out of this pamphlet, in which we took occasion to introduce a few particulars concerning the romantic life and character of Pulaski, and to add such strictures as occurred to us, on that part of the 'Life of Greene,' which related