Class E ^1 ^
Book ^^ ^^
18th CONGRESS, L 91 ]
2d Session.
MUSiii©!!
FROM THE
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES,
tbAnsmittiho
A REPORT FROM THE SECRETARY OF STATE,
WITH COPIES OF
The Correspondence with the Goi^ernment of France^
TOUCBISO T!iK
intev.pretation of the eighth article of the treaty
E^t ©cfiiston 0C ILouiulmxa.
rEBRUARY 17, lS'-25.
Referred to the Committee on Foriiign Aff.iir;
WASHINGTON:
FHI^TED av OALES £J SKA.T<JS.
1 i
.U 5-8
[91]
To the House of Eqjresentatives of the United States:
I transmit herewith to the House a report from the Secretary ot'
State, with copies of the correspondence with the government of
France, requested by the resolution of the House, of the 25th of Jan-
uary last.
JAMES MONROE.
Washington^ 17 th Fehruarijf 1825.
[911
Department of State,
Washington, 16th Fehruanj, 1825.
The Secretary of State, to whom has been referred a resolution of
the House of Representatives, of the 25th January, requesting that
the President would *• communicate to that House any correspondence
in his possession, which he may not deem it improper to disclose,
which has taken place between the Government of the United States
and that of France, touching the inter|)retation of the 8th article of
the treaty of the cession of Louisiana," has the honor of reporting
to the President copies of the documents requested by that resolu-
tion.
JOHN QUINCY ADAMS.
[91]
LIST OF PAPERS SENT.
10.
11.
a.
12.
IS.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
24.
25.
Mr. deNcuville to Mr. Adams, 15th December, 1817, translation
Mr. Adams to Mr. de Ncuvillo, 23 do do copy
Mr. dcNeuvilleto Mr. Adams, iGtIi June, 1818, translation
Mr. Roth to same, 19th July, 1820,
Mr. Gallatin to same, No. 155, 31st July, 1820,
Mr. Roth to same, 8th Ani^ust do
Mr. Gallatin to Mr Pasquier, 15th August
Mr. Adams to Mr. Gallatin, 24 24th do
Mr. Gallatin to Mr. Adams, iGl I9th Sep'tomber do
a Baron Pascjuierto Mr. Gallatin, 13th do.
6 Mr. Gallatin to Mr. Pasquier, 15th do
Mr. Gallatin to Mr. Adams, 163 19th October
Same to Same, 164 23d do
Same to Baron Pasquier, 22d do
172
1820,
do
23d do
29th March
do do
Same to Mr. Adams,
Baron do, Ncuville to same,
Mr Gallatin to same, 174
Mr. Adams to Baron de Neuville,
Baron de Neuville to Mr. Adams, 30th do
Same to same, 15th May
Mr. Adams to Baron de Neuville, 15th June
Baron de Neuville to Mr. Adams, 30th do
Same to same, 1 5th October
Mr. Gallatin to same, 233
Same to same, 236 1
a. M. de Vilk-lc to Mr. Gallatin, 6th
h. Mr. Gallatin to M.deVillelc, 12th
Same to Mr. Adams, 237 19th
a. M. de Villele to jMr. Gallatin, 15th
Mr. Gallatin to Mr. Adams, 241 5th January,
Same to same, 250 27th B'ebruary,
a. Same to Viscount de Chateaubriand, 27th do
do.
extract.
do.
do.
do.
do.
translation.
copy,
do extract.
do.
do copy.
l8t February, 1821, extract
do
do
do
do
do
do
do
do
do.
do.
copy.
trans.
do.
copy.
trans.
do.
24th September, 1822, extract.
th November,
do
do
do
do
do
do
do
do
do
1823,
do
do
26. Mr. Brown to Mr. Adams, 17 29th November, 1824,
do.
trans.
copy.
do.
trans.
copy.
do.
do.
do.
t «1 ]
No. 1.
Mr. Hyde de Muville to Mr. Adams, dated Dec. 15, 18 IT.
[translation.]
Sir: Tlie Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of
His Most Christian Majesty has received reiterated orders to ascer-
tain the truth of tlie statement made by several masters of merchant
ships, affirming that French vessels are not treated, in the ports of
Louisiana, upon the footing of the most favored natioj.s. Upon in-
vestigation, it not only appears that such is actually the case, hut the
undersigned has even found that several protests had been lodged in
vam with the local authorities, against this manifest infraction of the
8th article of the Louisiana Treaty. He is well assured that this must
have been the mere consequence of erroj-, or of incorrect interpretation
given, on the spot, to a clause which is absolute and unconditional by
its own terms, and which can neither be limited nor modified, beinar
the essential unlimited condition of a contract t)f cession, can neither
be subject to limitation nor to a)iy modification whatever. The Min-
ister of His Most Christian Majesty persuades himself, that it will
suflice thus to call tlie attention of the Federal Government to this af-
fair, in order to obtain from its justice the reparation of an injury so
very prejudicial to French commerce. He, therefore, requests of the
Secretary of State that this his re])resenta'aon, made by order of his
Court, be submitted as soon as possible to the President, in order that
His Excellency may be pleased to issue orders to such effect that in
future the 8th article of the treaty of 1803, between France and the
United States receive its entire execution, and that the advantages
granted to Great Britain in all the ports of the United States, be se-
cured to France in those of Louisiana. The principle of justice here
claimed cannot be denied, and must necessarily insure the reimburse-
ment of the duties which have been unjustifiably levied upon French
vessels in New-Orleans. The undersigned Minister expects, with
entire confidence, the decision of the President; of which he requests
the Secretary of State will enable him to inform his court as soon as
possible: The Government of His Majesty desires, as soon as pos-
sible, to quiet the commerce of France, with regard to proceedings
so contrary to its interests, and to the true spirit of the Louisiana
Treaty.
The undersigned has the honor, &c.
G. HYDE DE NEUYILLE,
8 [911
No. 2.
Mr. Mams to Mr. Hijde Be MuvilU.
Department of State,
December 23, 1817".
The undersigneil. Secretary of State has received and laid
before the President, the note which he had the honor of receiving
from the Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of
France, complaining that French vessels are not, conformably to the
8th article of tiie treaty of cession of Louisiana, treati'd in the ports
of that state, npon the footing of the most favored nation; and claim-
ing, as a right, dtdncible from the same article, that French vessels
should in future enjoy, in the ports of Louisiana, all the advantages
granted to the English nation in all the ports of the Union.
The undersigned is instnicted to say, that the vessels of France arc
treated in the ports of Louisiana, upon the footing of the most favor-
ed nation; and that neither the English nor any other foreign nation,
enjoys gratuitous advantage there which is not equally enjoyed by
France. But English vessels, by virtue of a conditional compact,
arc admitted into "the ports of the United States, including those of
Louisiana, upon payment of the same duties as the vessels of the Uni-
ted States. The condition upon which they enjoy this advantage is,
that the vessels of the United States shall be admitted into the ports of
Great Britain, upon payment of the same duties as are there paid by
British vessels.
The 8th article of the treaty of cession, stipulates that the ships of
France shall ho treated upon the footing of the most favored nations
in the ports of the ceded territory; but it does not say. and cannot
be UTiderstood to mean, that France should enjoy as a free gift, that
which is conceded to otlicr nations for a full equivalent.
It is obvious, that, if French vessels should be admitted into the
ports of Louisiana, upon payment of the same duties as the vessels of
the United States,, they would be treated, not upon the footing of the
most favored nation, according to the article in question, but upon a
footing n^.orc favored than any other nation; since other nations, with
the exception of England, j)ay l.igher toniiage duties, and the excntp-
tion of Eiiglisii vessels is not a fiee gift, but a purchase, at a fair and
equal price.
It is true, that the terms of the 8th article are positive and uncon-
ditional; but it will readi!y he perceived, that the condition, though
jiot cxprescd in the article, is inherent in the advantage claimed un-
der it. If British vessels enjoyed in the ports of Lo'iisiana any gra-
tuitous favor, undoubtedly. Frencii vessels would, by the terms of the
article, be entitled to the same.
A more extensi\e construction cannot be given to tlje article, con-
sistently with the Constitiilio'j of the la;ited Slates, which declares
that ''all duties, imposts, and excises, hhal! be uniform throughout the
United States; and that no i)rererence shall be gi\en by any regula-
tion (tf Commerce or revenue, to the ports of one state over those oT
another.'"
[ 91 ] 9
It would be incompatible with other articles of the treaty of cession
itself, one of which cedes the territory to the United States *'in full
sovereignty,** and anotlier declares that its "inhabitants shall be in-
corpoiated in tlie union of the United States, and be admitted as
soon as possible, according to the principles of the Federal Constitu-
tion, to the enjoyment of all the ri,e;hts, advantages and immunities
of citizens of the United States." If France could claim/orerer, ad-
vantages in the poits of Louisiana, which could be denied to her in
the other ports of the United States, she would have ceded to the Uni-
ted States, not the full, but an imperfect sovereignty, and if France
could claim admission for her vessels forever, into the ports of Lou-
isiana, upon the payment of duties not uniform with those which they
must pay in the otiier ports of the United States, it would have been
impossible to liave admitted the inhabitants of Louisiana, according
to the principles of the Federal Constitution, to the enjoyment of all
the rights, advantages, and immunities, of citizens of the United
States.
Tiie undersigned is happy to be authorized, in concluding this note,
to add, that the Government of the United States is willing to extend
to France, not only in the ports of Louisiana, but in those of all the
United States, every advantage enjoyed by the vessels of Great Bri-
tain, upon the fair and just equivalent of reciprocity; and that, in the
meantime, the vessels of France shall be treated in all the poi-ts of the
United States, including Louisiana, on the footing of the most favored
nation; enjoying gratuitously every favor indulged gratuitously to
others: and every conditional favor upon the reciprocation of the
Same to vessels of the United States in France.
He prays the Minister of France to accept the assurances of his
very dtetinguished consideration.
JOHN QUINCY ADAMS,
No. 3.
Mr. de JSTeuville to Mr. Adams.
[translation.]
Washington, 16th June, 1818
Sir: I have had the honor of receivitig your note in answer to
mine of the i.^th December last, concerning the non-execution of the
8th article of the Louisiana treaty.
I took care duly to communicate the proposal made by the Federal
Government, to extend to France, not only in the ports of Louisiana,
but even in all those of the United States, the advantages therein en-
joyed by British vessels on a footing of absolute reciprocity. His
Majesty is ever disposed not to neglect any thing that can tend to
rivet the bonds of friendship of the two countries, and to improve
9.
10 L 91 ]
tlieir commercial intercourse, and will, no doubt, examine this pro-
posal \\ ilh very particular attention.
In the mean time, as it would be neither just nor proper, that the
execution of the clauses of a contiact already made and comj)]etely
concluded, should be dependent on an ari'anj^ement, which, as yet. is
only in coutemplatinn, and, as the enjoytncnt of a perpetual uncon-
ditional riglit should never in any case b" blended with reciprocal
a(l\anta!j;es. oi* concessions wiiich time annuls, and which accidental
causes may mo'.lify or destroy; as France claims nothirig but what
siie knows is due to her, and as she is well persuaded that the Fed-
eral (jiovrnaneiit will never deny what it is conscious of owing;
there is much reason to hope that the following observations will suf-
fice to establish our riglit, and thus remove every obsta'^le tails free
enjoyment I will add, that fresh orders from His Majesty make it
my duty to neglet t no means of obtaining, as soon as possible, this
act, whoseaccomj)rKshmcnt must be expected from mature deliberation
on the question, and is warranted by the acknowledged equity of the
Federal Govei'ument.
You have stated, sir, that French vessels are treated in the ports of
Louisiana vpon the footing of tlie most favored nation; and that no for-
eigh natwn enjoys there any gratuitous advantage ivhich is not equallij
enjoyed by France' You add, sir, fhut^ if British vessels are allowed in
the ports of the United States, certain advantages which Jimerican ves-
sels likexvise enjoy in the ports of Great Britain, it is by virtue of a con'
ditional compact founded on reciprocity of advantages.
Finally, after recalling the 8th article which stipulates expressly,
that, in future, and for ever, French vessels shall be treated upon the
footing of the most favored nation, in the ports of the ceded territory:
you observe that the article does not say, and that it could not be under-
stood to mean, that France should enjoy as a free gift, that which is con"
ceded to other nations fur a full equivalent.
I shall, in the iirst place, have the honor to observe, that France
asks not for a free gift: slie claims the enjoyment of a right, which
it is not even necessary for her to acquire, since it proceeds from
hei-self, being a right which, when she consented to dispose of Loui-
siana, she had power to reserve for the interest of her trade, and
the actual reservation of which is established, not implicitly, but in
the most precise and formal terms, by the 8th article of the Louisiana
ti-eaty.
France. I repeat it, asks no free gift, since the territory ceded
is the e(|uivalent alirady ])aid by her for all the clauses, charges, and
conditions, executed, or which remain to be fulfilled, by the United
States; and which, principally, consist in the 7th and 8th articles
of the Treaty, and 1st of the Convention.
If the 8th article of the Louisiana Treaty had no other object but
that of securing to France a conditional advantage in the ports of
Louisiana", if such had been the true spirit of this clause, and final-
ly, if the American negotiators had been firmly convinced that this
reservation of the French (ioveriiment was not absolute, but was
[91] a
merely one of tliose customary reciprocal concessions wiiich occur in
almost all Treaties of Amity and Commerce: it is likely that no
pains would have hecn taken to frame the article, so as absolutely
to contradict tiie intention of the contracting parties; and it stands
to reason that, if such had been their A'icws, the terms usually cm-
ployed in other Treaties would have been employed here also, in-
stead of so pi.-ecise a stipulation of an uncou<{itional aiid perpetual
advantage in favor of France. In all the Treaties between France
and tiie United States, the condition of reciprocity is positively
mentioned: tiiey all expressly say. that the contracting parties shall
rccJprocaUy enjoy such favors as shall b© conceded to other nations,
freelif, if freely granted io other nations, or, upon granting the same
^condition, if conditionally granted. How shall we account for the
strange and unusual construction here adopted? Who would admit
the possibility, or likelihood, of an omission on the part of Negoti-
ators, the object of wljose mission was not to stipulate doubtful
clauses, subject to discussion, but, on the contrary, as it is expressly
stated in the Treaty, '* to remove all sources of misunderstanding
*' relative to objects of discussion, and to strengthen the union and
♦' friendship which, at the time of the said Convention, was happily
<' rc-es'abUshed between the two nations'"
And furthermore, how shall we reconcile the silence observed by
the Senate in iSOS, respecting this unconditional and unlimited favor
secured to France, with the positive refusal of the same House, in 1801,
to ratify a convention founded on reciprocity of advantage, unless on
the express condition that it should be limited to eight years?
The natural inference, the only explanation of all this, is, that, in
1801, the question was on a convention or treaty of amity and com-
merce, while, in 1803, it wan on a contract of sale or cession,
which instruments are of so different a nature as not to admit the ap-
plication of similar principles and consequences; nor can it be sup-
posed that the negotiators of the treaty of I80t had forgotten to
mention that the citizens of the two nations should reciprocally bo
treated, each, in the ports of the other, upon the footing of the most fa-
vored nations, since this principle of reciprocity was not only the ge-
neral basis, but was even, in almost every instance, the sine qua non
of preceding commercial convetitions.
But the negotiators of the treaty of 1803, knew full well that they
were not commissiojied to settle the commercial or navigating inte-
rests of the two countries, and were merely authorized to make a con-
tract of sale or cession, whic!i, however important, from the value of
the object ceded, was not the less subject, like every conveyance be-
tween individuals, to certain and invariable rules of construction and
interpretation. A contract of sale admits of no implication, (sous
entendu) it is a plain simple transaction, by which one party is bound
to deliver a certain property, and the other party to receive it, on ccr-
taijj charges and conditions more or less rigorous.
Those clauses and conditions cannot be interpreted otherwise than
according to the terms in which they are expressed in the contract;
12 [91]
nor can they be annulled or modified except by the coni3ent ot both
parties. Their entire execution is, indeed, so ri.a;orous]y binding, tliat
it olone may be said rmally to seal the transaction. But the article
would appear to you, sir. to bo. in this, its only natural construction,
inconsistent with the constitution, which declai'cs tliat all dutieSy im-
pasts, and ^a?cises,,shall be uniform throughout the United States.
It wouhl seem \o me that this clause of the constitution has no other
rcfeieiice than to the interior administration of the country, and tiiat
it cannot be proper to consider, in the light of a mere tax or impost,
that wliich is an express condition of tlic sale or cession of a territory,
and is one of the clauses of a treaty which itself becomes a law of the
United States.
You express an o])inion, sir, that the 8th article, if interpreted ac-
cording to its grammatical and literal sense, would be incompatible
•with another article of the same treaty, which cedes the territory to the
United States in full sovereignty, arguing that, if France could claim for-
ever advantages in the ports of Louisiana, which could be denied to her
in the other ports of the Uuited States, she would have ceded to the Uuited
States not the full, but an imperfect sovereignty .
AMowme to observe, that this last point of the argument is answer-
ed by youi'own decision admitting tiiat, if British vessels enjoyed, in
the ports of Louisiana, any gratuitous favor, undoubtedly Frenchvessels
would, by the terms of the treaty, be entitled to the same.
This admits the possibility of an imperfect sovereignty, and sup-
poses an instance in which France might be entitled to claim, in the
ports of Louisiana, a favor which could be denied her in the other
l)orts of the United States.
Moreover, if the United States have, by the constitution, a right to
giant to other nations gratuitous favors in their ports, it follows,
from your own interpretation of the perpetual reservation made by
France, that, in order to deprive her of the right so reserved, and to
avoid rendciing, tliereby, tlie sovereignty of this republic imperfect,
the Federal Government must not grant to other nations any gratui-
tous concessions in the territory ceded by France, though it should be
found expedient so to do, atid advantageous to their commercial interest
and policy. In other words, the Federal Government, by consenting
to tiieeiglith article, would have deprived itself of a real right of sove-
reignly. In the preceding hypothesis, the dilbculty is merely eluded
and not removed. The right is not the less unqualified, and consent-
ed to forever.
But will it be said the constitution allows no preferences among
the different states; they are all, by the federal compact, subject to
the same charges, and are to enjoy the same privileges. It would
apjiear to me, sir, that this perfect uniformity is applicable only to a
state when it has once become a state. The regulations made for the
family cannot be meant to extend beyond its circle; and thelaw which
est.tldished such regulations never can have blended the circumstan-
ces pre existent to tlie admission of a new member (much less the ve-
ry conditions of admission) with the rights, charges, and privileges.
[91] 18
which are the consequence springing therefrom: thus did Congress
judge: to th<Mn it appeared that tlic instrument of sah' oi* cession of
Louisiana liad no analogy to a commorcial reguh\tinn, or to a disttibu-
tion of taxes; and they admitted, without discussion, the 7th and 81h
articles of thetieaty, becatise, if the constitution does not allow that a
territory, when once admitted into this Union, be marked by any dis-
tinct cliarges or advantages, it does not, on that account, prevent the
fulfilment of clauses exacted and consented to as conditions of its ad-
mission, f n all this there is neitlier exception nor preference; it is the
mere and simple execution of a conti'act freely and lawfully entered
into. But the third article says, that the inhabitants of the ceded ter-
ritory shall be incorporated into the Union, and admitted, as soon as
jmssible, to the enjoyment of all the advantages and immunities of citi-
zens of the United States.
This is true, and such, no doubt, was the intention of the contract-
ing parties. They expressly agreed, tiiat this admission should take
place as soon as possible; but most assuredly it was meant that this
should be done in conformity with the clauses and conditions mention-
ad in the treaty; and if the 8th article could have been considered
as an obstacle to the execution of the third article, it would equally
have been so thought of the rth; this article was, however, never con-
tested; it even received, during the twelve years of its duration, or
should have received, its full and entire operation by virtue of the
regulating act of Congress, of the 24th of February, 1804.
France and Spain still enjoyed in 1815, in Louisiana, the rights
and privileges secured by the 7th article, which rights, by the very
terms of the treaty, never can be granted to any other nation. France
and Spain were in the full enjoyment of tisese exclusive rights and pri-
vileges in 1815: and yet, in 1812, the stipulations of the 3d article was
fulfilled, the territory of Loiiisiana was admitted as a state into the
Federal body, and this new state was received without restriction, on
an equal footing with theo.-iginal states, in all respects whatever.
If. therefore, there were at this day any contradiction between the
3d and 8th articles, how could Congress, in 1812. surmount the ob-
jection arising from the much stronger inconsistency, which, on this
supposition, njust have existed between the 3d and 7th articles?
When Congress made Louisiana a member of the Union, before
the expiration of the 12 years, it was judged that such a compliance
with the conditions of a treaty, was by no means imcompatible with
the exercise of the full and entire rights of sovereignty. Perhaps it
may be answered, that the 7th article granted only temporary privi-
leges, and that the eighth article has no term fixed to it. To me, it
appears that the woviu forever, change nothing but the duration of the
privilege, without, in the least degree, altering the nature of the ques-
tion. Under a constitutional system, nothing can be ddue, ordered,
or consented to, that would infringe, even but for a limited term, the
established laws of the country. All the transactions of Governments
must be legal. If, therefore, the piovisionsof the Constitution which
regulate the existence of a state after its admission, were applicable
14 [91 J
to the oonditions on which it is to be admitted, it would, in such case,
have been no less impossible in 1813, than at tlie present day, to
grant to the inliabitants of Louisiana tiie riglits, jjrivileqes, and im-
munities, of citizens of the United States, since, on that supposition,
they must, in common with the other states, have had a right to make
France and Spain pay, in t!ieir po!'ts, l)igher tonnage duties than
those paid by tfie citizens of the United States; and since the Federal
Government Iiad no right, at that time, to grant, in the ])orts of the
ceded territory, to otiier nations, the privileges therein secured to
F'rance and to Spain. France did intend to ce<le the territory of
Louisiana to the United States forever, and in full sovereignty: hut
sovereignty does not consist in the enjoyment of every right and pri-
vilege: it lies in the |)re-eminent important autliority to enforce their
observance. When the French Government ceded Louisiana, it
ceased to be the sovereign of the country, but it did notecase to hold
proi)erty therein, since it reserved a right or privilege: for, a pri'i-
Icge acquired or reserved, is propei'ty as sacred as an annuity, as a
rent charge, or any othei*.
France, therefore, claims only the enjoyment of what is her pro-
perty; giving her possession of this lawful right far from rondei-ing
the sovereignty of the United States imperfect, would seem, in a
measure, only to make it more complete, since it is certain that the
liglit claimed by P'rance, is one of the essential conditions of the ces-
sion made by her of that sovereigtity. It may, perhaps, be answer-
ed, that there is some difference between the contracts of nations with
other nations, and a sale mad-e by one individual to another. ! see
very little, I confess, on tiie score of equity, the rules of interpretation
being in all cases alike applicable to eveiy human transaction. By
the law of nations, it is an invariable rule that treaties or contracts,
of whatsoever nature, should be understood according to the force and
meaning of their expressions; and nothing surely can be more uncon-
ditional or more clearly expressed than the following clause: "In
futuic, and forever, after the expiration of the 12 years, French ves-
sels shall be treated upon the footing of the most favored nations in
the ports of the said territoi'y." Inj'iitxire andj'orever are expressions
free from all ambiguity. JJfter the expiration of the 12 ycars^ these
Avords prove, that the treatment or privilege secured by the 8th ar-
ticle, is to follow without condition or limitation of time. That of the
7th article. French vessels shall be treated, does not mean may be
treated: but tliat they shall undoubtedly and positively be treated
upon the footing of tlie most favored nation. And it makes no dif-
ference whether that treatment be the consequence of a gratuitous or
of a cotiditional concession; the article has no restriction; it expressly
states, French vessels shall be treated upon t!ie footing of the [most]
favored nations. Fhe consequence is, that French vessels are, with-
out condition, to be treated, in the ports of Louisiana, upon the foot-
ing of the vessels of Great Britain, which is at this time the most
favored nation. I think I have proved, sir, that to demand an equi-
valent of France, because England has given one, would, in a niea-
[91]
iS
sure, be requiring her to purchase what is already her own property,
and oblij^ing her to pay twice for the same thing.
I think I have also proved^ that the sovereignty of the United
States is, and will still remain, entire and perfect, such as it was
ceded by the treaty of 1803,' although Fiance be put into possession
of tliat right, which is secured to her in future and forever, I could
cite many e>:amples of analogous privileges, which never were con-
sidered as impairing the sovereignty of nations. But it appears to
me, that the best of all arguments triat can be addressed to the equi-
ty and honest feelings of the American Governmtnt, is, that France
claims only her lawful due and rights that the title establishing it is
worded in terms of such force and precision, as must suffice to re-
move every doubt, and absolutely to solve the question.
The claim which I have the honor to address to you, sir, being en-
tirely dependent on the Executive authority, I cannot but hope, I
shall soon have to inform my Court, that the President has been
pleased to issue such orders as will secure in future the execution of
the 8th article of the Louisiana Treaty, and the immediate reimburse-
ment of the duties which have been unjustifiably levied to this day.
I have the honor to be, &c.
G. HYDE DE NEUVILLE.
No. 4.
Mr. Roth, Charge d' Affaires of France, to the Secretarij of State.
translation.
Legation of France to the United States,
Washington, July 19, 18£0.
Sir: I learn by a letter from his Majesty's Consul at New Or-
leans, dated 13th June, the time when the law, establishing a new
duty of tonnage upon French ships, came to be known in that city,
that the officers of the Custom House there appeared to be of opinion
that this law ought to be put into execution in Louisiana, as well as
in the other parts of the Union, because it made no exception; and
that these agents of the j)ublic revenue made their dispositions ac-
cordingly. The law of 15th May, in question, does, in fact, point
out no exception, and even has these words, *' any act to the contrary
notwithstanding."
But this disposition, implying an abrogation of anterior laws be-
longing to the duty of the state, cannot be applied to treaties and con-
tracts of nation with natioi, which are without the reach of interior
legislation, and form another distinctlaw, which can only be modified
by mutual consent by new treaties between the contracting parties.
16
[91 J
This is predetermined, and understood in all the private acts of
nations.
The treaty of cession of Louisiana says, positively, article 8, " In
future and foicvor, after the expiration of the twelve years, the ships
of France shall he treated upon the footing of the most favored na-
tions in the ports ahove mentioned."
Passin.i^ hy the existing discussions upon this article, and in what
manner the word favor is understood, tliere can he no doubt of the
sense vvliich it expresses for the present case.
The new duty of tonnage estahlishcd on French ships exclusively,
p aces them in a state of grievous inequality in regard to the ships
ot other nations^ even here there is no (picstion of a favor refused,
but ot a charge imposed. What regards Louisiana, is exactly con-
trary to what IS guarantied for ever and ever by the 8th article.
Keativc to this state of inequality, in which the law of 15th May
has placed l^rencli navigation in the ports of Louisiana, I shall ob-
serve, in passing, tliat th-^re is a grave error in the reasonings which
have bei^n employed in Congress, and in the printed correspondence
ol Mr. liaihitin. tojustify this measure.
It is jn-etctided, that its aim is to counterbalance the discriminat-
ing duties established in France. But these duties are applied in
common to all foreign nations, and do not place the navigation of the
Lnited states in our ports upon any footing of inferiority, with re-
gard to other nations; whilst the new duty of tonnage imposed in
America so ely upon French ships, places the navigation of France,
with regard to other nations, in such a state of inferiority, that it is
equivalent. It the law continued, to a real exclusion of our ships from
he ports ot the Lnited States. This is any thing but a compensation
based upon reciprocity. Another disposition of this law, which
would give It a character dilHcult to conceive, if it were not supposed
to arise from inadvertence, is the short time assigned for its execu-
tion, in America, a law made on the I5th of MaV, against a power
otF^urope, cannot be put into execution on the I'st of July, that is
only lo, y.fivc days from the date, without injuring the security
granted to commerce; and it is not from a power eminently commei-
cial, tha an example so dangerous, given with deliberation, ought to
be apprehemled It must be believed that the peculiarity arises Jolely
fion the considerable lapse of time between the presenting of the bill
and Its adoption. But it is nevertheless a tort with whid, our com-
mcMCc by sea is threatened, and I expect strong remonstrances on the
next arrivals of French ships, unless instructions, agreeably to t-e-
?oe Tti": if : r ''"■' "i-^r''^' "'" •?'^'^» t« '^' ««'^^-'- «f the custoins,
toi ships that have sailed before the promulgation of the law, in the
place whence they have departed.
«l.i^.iu""^ ?^ '"tcntion. Sir, to pursue, at present, the observations
already con ained in the letter of his Majesty's Minister, dated ^4tk
Ma>, upon this question, in general, m.r upon the discussion, pre-
wous y raised concerning the treaty of cession of Louisiana. I shall
aN^ait, upon these two subjects, for your answer, and such instruct
L9AJ 17
tions as may be directly addressed to me by my Government. But,
as to the particular subject which I have the honor of submitting to
you, the execution of the law of tonnage in the ports of Louisiana,
notwithstanding an express stipulation of a treaty which this law
cannot touch, this makes a part of my natural duties, and wants no
special instructions for requiring my interference. The new law had
only arrived in Louisiana at the moment I was written to. I must
think that there was a mistake, or a want of sufficient instructions in
the opinion then expressed by the officers of the customs. Before
answering his Majesty's Consul, upon the conduct which he ought
to pursue, I have the honor of praying you to be pleased to inf<rrm
me on a point of such importance, in the relations and ties existing
between France and the United States.
I have the honor to offer you, Sir, the respectful assurance of my
high consideration.
ROTH,
Charge d"* Jijf aires, ad interim.
No. 5.
Extract of a letter, No.\55, from Mr. Gallatin (communicating sub-
stance of a conversation with M. Pasqiiier,) to Mr. Mams, dated
31 July, 1820.
'* An allusion was made in the course of the conference, to the
claim of the French, to be treated, without any equivalent, at New
Orleans, in the same manner as the British now are. I did not know
of this difficulty till it was occasionally mentioned in conversation by
Mr. Pasquicr. The pretension appears to me altogether untenable,-
but I would have wished to know what answer has been given at
Washington, to the reclamations of the French Minister, and what
are the President's intentions on that subject."
No. 6.
Extract of a letter from Mr. Roth, Charge d'affaires of France to the
Secretary of State, dated 8th August, 1 820.
[transiation^.]
" The letter which I had the honor of addressing to you on the
18th of last month, was intended to represent that the law of 15th May
1820, which established upon French ships, in the ports of the United
States, a tonnage duty different from that which is levied upon other
foreign ships, could not be applicable to French vessels in the ports of
18 [91 ]
Louisiana, agreeably to the 8th article of the Treaty of cession, whicb
runs thus:
*' Article 8. In future and forever, after the expiration of the twelve
year', French ships shall be treated upon the footing of the most fa-
voured nation in the Ports above mentioned."
1 ought to coiifitie myself to the citation of the text, upon a con-
dition so clearly, so positively expressed, in a special clause of a
Treaty of cession, of which all the conditions together, and each of
thcni in particular, areequally obligatory and necessary to the valid-
ity of the contract. I have not had the honor of being informed of the
measures which the Federal Government has taken to enforce, in this
point, liie execution of the Tteaty of cession, agreeably to the obliga-
tions contracted by the Treaty itself, notwithstanding every law to
the contrary. This care of protection belongs to llie power which
lias made the engagement. As regards the King's Legation, 1 have
done, what was its duty for the preservation of rights, by demanding
that these measures should he taken, and by prescribing to his Ma-
jesty's consul at New Orleans, who expected an answer, to protest
against every exaction which might be made, by the Custom House,
fiom French vessels beyond what is received from ships belonging
to the most favoured nations, but not to go on, if his protest remain
witliout eft'ect, till it had been referred to the authority which signs
and "maintains the Treaties. In this I have only conformed to
the insti'tictions formerly adiessed in a similar case concerning the
same 8th article of the Treaty of cession of Louisiana."
No. r.
Extract of a letter from Mr. Gallatin^ to Mr. Pasquicr, dated 15th
August, 1820.
•' I have in this letter, confined myself to that subject which, from
the present situation of the commercial relations of the two countries,
requires the most immediate attention. But I must at once state
that, having no other knowledge of the difficulties in the execution
of the 8th article of the Louisiana convention, than what is derived
from your Excellency, and having received no communication what-
ever on that subject from my Government, it is not in my power to
discuss it at this time."
No. 8.
Extract of a letter, JV'o. 24, from Mr. Mams to Mr. Gallatin^ dated
24th August, 1820.
" I had the honor of receiving, yesterday, your despatches, No.
148, 149, and 150, with their enclosures. The preceding numbers
L91]
19
had been received before. The last of your letters bemg dated b«
6?h of July, I am in hopes that Mr. Hyde de Neuv. He. who sailed
from Annapilis on the 1st or 2d of June, must have arrived in France
Sn a very few days afterwards. He was the bearer of my letter
to vou No. 20, and, by his personal observation, was aware ot the
friendi; disp;' tion towards France with which the act of Con.^ress,
of the fsih of May, was passed. The President will much regret the
c rcumstance, if it should be viewed by the French Government with
rSent sprit. The duty of 100 francs per ton, upon American
Vessel ,f laid, will, probably, not have very extensive effects ship-
mentB to France in American vessels having already in a great mea-
'"- I'tTs'sfncerely hoped by the President, that this counteracting and
rounteivaim.- system will give way to the disposition for an amica-
r an-ang;me;:t';1n a concfliatory spirit, and with a view to the m-
^^"^1^: torn Jei; wtiS; has been manifested in France, not oi^y on this
occasion, but in relation to all the just claims of citizens of the Unit-
ed Sates upon the French Government, could not possibly terminate
Without coing to a crisis; and, at the same time that a pos, i ve re-
Te' ion of tl?e m^ost indisputable demands of our citizens for .ndemn.ty
was Returned for answer to every note which you presented m their
ieha r u7on the untenable pretence, that the Government of tin.
Bourbons cannot be responsible for the outrages of its immediate pre.
Ssso s cla ms equally untenable were advanced, and reiterated
^ h he most tonaci^ous j^erseverance, of privileges, contrary to our
ronstitution. in the ports of Louisiana, founded on an inadmissible
con rucS of an article in the treaty for the cession of Louisiana.
" I the construction contended for of that article by France were
even conrtrhow c^ present Government claim any advantage
from a compact made wiUi Napoleon, after an explicit declaration,
rtl^yllol'themselves absolved from uU ^^^^;;^fZ:^Z
due to the United States and the.r citizens for '^ ^^f jj .^J^^^^' ^^
tl.i« now because Mr. Roth informs me that he has uiiecieo xne
That minister replied; but, as theie was """» "^ " nostnon-
X 'ct t'o .,^ to have .he las, wo,d. _ ■£!- P- -- ■;. thaU
ed, merely f»
no possible object to us ui nave ...v. .«.. ..^.^_ .
by he eighth article of the Louisiana lioaty,ienc.xe^^^^^^^
20
[91]
score of equal favor, that he should give a bag of cotton or a hogs-
head of tobacco to him, because he had sold the same articles to a
third, as France can claim as a gratuitous favor to her that which
has been granted for valuable consideration to Great Britain. The
claim to which we admit that France is entitled under that article, is
t« the same privilege enjoyed by England, upon her allowing the same
equivalent. That is completely and exclusively our treatment of the
most favored nation, and to that we are not only willing, but desirous
of admitting France. But even to that she can have no pretence
Willie she refuses to be responsible for the deeds of Napoleon. If she
claims the benefit of his treaties, she must recognize the obligation
ot his duties, and discharge them."
Ko. 9.
Extract of a letter, M. 161, from Mr. Gallatin to Mr. Mams, dated
Septemher 19, 1820.
"On the 12th inst. Mr. Pasquicr invited me to a conference for the
same day, in which, to my great astonishment, he stated, that the
King s Government considered the discussion of the 8th article of the
treaty, of the 30th of April, 1803, as inseparable from that of the
discriminating duties, since France claimed, under that article an
exemption in Louisiana from our new tonnage dutv, and generally
Irom all those to thepiiyment of which any other natiJn was I'mt liable.
1 expressed my surprise at this determination, which, since I was not
instructed on that subject, must, for the present, jiut an end to the
negotiation. I said that what rendered it more extraordinary that
a question, which had heretofore been treated apart from all others,
simu d novy be made an obstacle to the adjustment of other difficulties,
affocting all the commercial relations of the two countries, was the
si.ence which had, at /list, been preserved by France on that point.
Ihe nrst convention between tiie United States and Great Britain
niade in pursuance of the act of Congress of March, 1815, and bj-
^^^\l I f;«f''"""a^'".^- J"t>es were reciprocally abolished on both
s des, nould liave expu ed m l 8 1 9. It was renewed for ten years in
the year i818, without our Government having had any notice of this
chum on the part of France, although the fir^t convention had tin
been in force tor more than two years and a half. I added, that if,
accori.ng to my former suggrstion, the negotiation should he now
transferred to ^\ asui.^^ton, 1 thought it mv duty (« express my con-
viction t at the Government of the United SiLes -wiu d ce ta n y
cons.der he cous ruction of the article, for which France contended
as altogether .nadm.ss.ble. Mr. Pasquicr accounted for the deiav in
claiming the privileges, to which France thought herself entitled, by
thepeciihars..tuanonin which she was plare<I, during the period to
wh.cb I alluded, and which had prevent d her Goverifment'f m at.
[91] 2i
tending to any other than her internal aflfairs, or her European con-
cer!is. As he intimated that the determination not to separate the
discussion of the article in (juestion, from that of discriminating du-
ties, was taken, 1 refjaested him to communicate it in writing, hy
answering my h-tter of the 1 5th of August. IMiis he promised to do,
and 1 have the honor to enclose copies of the letter which he accord-
in'^-ly wrote to me on the ISth, and of my answer of the 15th instant.
You will perceive that the object of this answer is to impress on this
Government the necessity of desisting from this prejjosterous claim,
if they intend to bring the negotiation to a favorable result, cither
here, or at Washington. ,
" -r. Hyde de Neuville called on me on the evening ot tije IStli,
and expressed liis regret that 1 had not succeeded in concluding, at
least, a provisional arrangement, and the reluctance he feit to he
obliged to leave France at this time. I told him that he must be sen-
sible that the failure could not be ascribed to me. Whatever might
be my view of the subject, however disposed to listen to the argu-
ments which migiit be adduced by the French Government, it was
evident, that a discussion of the 8th article was useless, since it was
evident that I could not, without special instructions, accede to the
construction assumed by France. It was, therefore, equally fair,
and calculated to avoid unnecessary delays, to have .Jeclarod at once,
what was the fact, that, not being instructed on that subject, I could
not discuss it. I would add, that this was the only reason why 1 had
avoided the discussion, that the pretension set up by his Govern-
ment appeared to me altogether untenable, and that htlle more seein-
ed ntcessary to repel it, than merely to state the question. This
led to a desultory conversation on the nature of that claim, ot
which 1 will attempt to give the substance, although I am a-
ware that I may not have fully understood his reasoning, and that,
having already discussed the question with him, it must be more la-
miliar to you than to me. ^ , i i
- Mr. deNeuville's ars;uments appeared to me to he drawn less
from the natural and obvious meaning of the article, than from col-
lateral circumstances. He appealed to the intentions ot the negotia-
tors of the treaty of 1803, which he considered as susceptible of prooi,
and said, that the condition, stipulated in the Sth article, was the es-
sential compensation made to France; and, in fact, the real price
paid by the United States for Louisiana; and that the eighty millions
of francs were but an accessary. He mentioned the insertion, mi
some other treaty, of expressions limiting a sim. ar provision to he
sense for which we contended, and insisted that tl^-i; omissiun in e
article in question, was fatal to our construction ot it. He a.! u ed
to a supposed inconsistency of the article with the constitu lou o t e
United States, which, if it rendered ^ impossible for is to <o..py
with that provision of the treaty, made it necessary that '.e should,
Tn lieu of it, make some other concession or compensation acceptable
'" -rhi^'last argument was not perfectly intelligible to nie and^t
niidit have been inferred f.-om it, that the claim was set up onl} loi
22 [91]
the purpose ut obtain in.jj concessions in other respects. I observed,
that any diifictilty arisinjii^ from a supposed inconsistency between
our Constitution and the Louisiana treaty, was a concern of our
own,- that I did not perceive any, as the Constitution of the United
States became applicable to Louisiana, subject to any exception to be
found in the instrument by which we iiad acquired that territory;
and that, in point of fact the 7th article of the treaty had, during
twelve years, been carried into effect without any difficulty, al-
though it gave to France and Spain, privileges at New Orleans,
which they enjoyed in no other port of the United States. We could
not at this time, make a new treaty to that effect. I saw nothing
that prevented the execution of that of 1803, according to its strict
construction, which the United States could not at present, even if
they were so disposed, enlarge in favt)r of France.
" Keing unacquainted w ith the facts from which Mr. Hyde de Neu-
ville infen-ttd the intentions of tlie negotiators, I could form no opinion
on that point; but I insisted, that whatever they might have been, it
^va.s not by these tl^at the treaty must be construed; and that the two
nations were bound by the expressions, and only by the expressions,
used in the several articles, such as they had been ratified by the su-
preme authorities on both sides. As to any explanatory words which
might have been used in some other treaty, wiiatever their effect
might be on that treaty, their omission could not alter the obvious
meaning of the 8th article of that by which the United States had
acquired Louisiana; and the only question was, what was that mean-
ing? The article simply provided, that Frencli vessels should forever
be treated upon the footing of the most favored nations in the ports of
Louisiana. Now there were not, properly speaking, anv most favored
nations in the United States.
'•Congress had, by a general law. proposed to all the nations with
\yhom they had any commerce, a mutual repeal of discriminating du-
ties. Every nation might have accepted that proposal, ajid it was in
the power of France to avail herself of it whenever she pleased."
" The plan had been carried into effect with several powers, cither
by treaty stipulations, as was the case with Great Britain and Sweden,
or only by an uiulerstanding, or mere miniicipal regulations, as in the
case, of the Netherlands and of the free towns of Germany. In every
case, tlie repeal was mutual, and the consequence of the general offer
made by the United States. In every case, the vessels of the nation
which 1' ranee now considered as more favoi-ed than herself, Mere put,
in all the poi-ts of the United States, including those of Louisiana, on
tlie same looting as American vessels, on the express and reciprocal
condition that American vessels sjiould, in the poi-ts of that nation, be
treated on tiie same footing as indigenous vessels. What France
claimed was, to enjoy the privilege without fulfilling the condition on
which it was granted; tiiat her vessels shcMihl be treated, in Louisiana,
«n the Kame footing as American vessels, whilst American vessels
coming from Louisiana should, in her ports, continue to be subject to
any distnininating duties ehe might be pleased to impose. She asked.
[91] 23
in fact, to be treated not as favorably, but more favorably tban tbc
nations she called most favored. The stipulation to place a country
on the footing of the most favored nations necessarily meant, that, if a
privilege was granted to a third nation for an equivalent, that equiva-
lent must be given by the country which claimed the same privilege
by virtue of such stipulation. A different construction implied a con-
tradiction witli the terms of the stipulation.
It was true, I allowed, that there were cases in which a difficulty
miglit arise, that is to say, if a privilege was granted by the United
States to a third nation, iti exchange for some favor or equivalent of a
different nature from the privilege granted, and which France could
specifically give. But this was not the present case; not only France
could give the equivalent, but this equivalent was of the same nature
with the privilege granted, and both were so intimately connected,
that one could not be separated from the othei'. The moment an x\me-
rican vessel should cease to be treated, in the ports of Great Britain
or of the Netherlands, as a British or Dutch vessel, the British or
Dutch vessels, as the case might be, would at once cease to be treated
as American vessels in the ports of the United States. 1 have foimd,
since my conversation witii Mr. Hyde de Neuvilie, that the treaty to
which he alluded was tiiat of commerce between the United States
and France of the 6th February, 1778: by the 2d article of which, it
is agreed, that neither of the contracting parties shall grant a?iy par-
ticular favor to other nations, in respect of commerce and navi-
gation, which sliall not become common to the other party ti'lio shall
enjoy the same favor gratuitonslif, if the concession rvas gratuitous, or
on allowing the same compensation, if the concession rvas conditional.
These last words, inserted for greater caution, define what w as meant
by that stipulation; and if any inference was to be drawn from them,
it would be, that the two nations had, in their first treaty, thought
proper to state explicitly what they intended by the clause, of being
placed on the footing of other (or most favored) nations, and that this
explanation having once been given, the same construction must ever
after be given to clauses of a similar nature, without its being neces-
sary to repeat these explanatory words. And they have been accord-
ingly omitted in every subsequent commercial arrangement between
the two countries, as well in the 6th article of the convention of the
30th September, 1800, as in the 8th article of the Louisiana treaty.
But these words are mere surplusage; the clause would have precisely
the same meaning without as with them; and their omission in an ar-.
tide of a subsequent treaty, cannot, as I had observed to Mr. de Neu-
vilie, alter the only construction of which that article is susceptible.
" In answer to the objection that the article would, according i&
our construction, be of no value to France, I answered generally that
it would fulfil its avowed object, which was to enable her to trade at
all times to New^ Orleans, on terms not more, but as advantageous,
as any other nation. It might be our interest to agree to a mutual
repeal of discriminating duties, or to any other mutual commercial
privilege with England or some other nation, and not with France.
24 [ 91 ]
But if we had made such an agreement, France ha'Q a right, on ful fil-
ing ilie reciprocal condition, to claim the same privilege in Louisiana,
liowcver inconvenient that might be to m. We might be compciled,
by an unsuccessful war, or induced by ])o}itical considerations, to
grant some gratuitous favor to a third nation: and France would, in
that case, immediately participate gratuitously in Louisiana, in the
same favor, although we !iad no motive for granting it to her. The
article did confer substantial and permanent advantages on her, with-
out Incurring to the construction for which she contended."
No. 9. — a. \
Baron Pasquier to Mr. Gallatin.
[translation.]
Pakis, September 13, 1820.
Sir: I have submitted to the King the letter which you did me the
honor to write to me on the 15th of last month, in answer to my note
of tlie 31st of the month preceding: I have since recounted to His Ma-
jesty the conference which I had with you upon the object of that cor-
i'esp<nidence. His Majesty being informed, sii', of the impossibility
of your entering upon an explanation of the difficulty which exists in
America, relative to the execution of the 8th ai-ticle of the Treaty of
50th April, 1803; and judgijig that the settlement of that difficulty
cannot be separated from the negotiation of an arrangement of the
respective navigation of the two states, considering that the article
ahove mentioned secures special advantages to the French flag, in the
ports of Louisiana, is resolved to send, with the greatest possible
promptitude, to America, his minister, to he near the Federal Govern-
ment. He has thought, and his opinion in that has been in accord-
ance with your own, that it was a means of accelerating the negotia-
tion — a thing the more desirable, because the present state can only, by
heing prolonged, be injurious to the well known intei-ests of both coun-
tries.
I regret, sir, that this circumstance (h'prives me of the advantage
of pursuing, directly, with you, an affair of that importance in which I
am luippy to believe, that your superior information, and your spirit
of conciliation, would have afforded all desirable facilities.
Accept the assurances of the high consideration with which I have
the Iionor to be,
Sii", your most liumhle and most obed't servant,
TASQUIER.
[91] -15
No. 9.— &.
Mr. Gallatin to Mr. Vasquier.
Paris, 1 5th September, 1820.
Sir: I had the honor to receive your Excellency's letter of the 13th
inst. by which you inform me that, since I am without instructions
respecting the 8th arti^^Ie of tlie treaty of the 30th of April, 1803, it
lias been determinetl that His Majesty's Minister to the United States
should depart as soon as possible for America.
Although I believe that a transfer of the negotiation to America,
may, under existing circumstancos, accelerate a definitive result, your
Excellency will be pleased to recollect that, so far from having in any
manner countenanced an expectation that the Government of the Unit-
ed States would accede to the construction put by that of France, on
the 8th article of the Louisiana treaty, I have expressed a contrary
opinion.
1 have not been led to that conclusion, merely because I consider
that construction as altogether untenable. Your Excellency has in-
formed me that the subject had already been discussed, in writing, at
"Washington, between His Majesty's Minister and the Secretary of
State of the United States, who had argued against the construction
contended for in France.
Notwithstanding this discussion, the Secretary of State has not even
alluded to that subject in the instructions which he has subsequently
given to me in relation to an arrangement of the commercial relations
of the two countiics. and to an adjustment of the difficulties which
have arisen in that respect. I am thence irresistibly led to infer,
that, after a thorough investigation, the view taken of the article by
the Government of the United States, essentially differs from that in
which it is considered by His Majesty's Government.
These observations were necessary, on account of my own respon-
sibility; but I pray your Excellency to ascribe them .principally to
my earnest desire that the negotiation in which I have not been for-
tunate enough to succeed, may, at Washington, be attended with a fa-
vorable result.
I request your Excellency to accept, &c.
ALBERT GALLATIN.
No. 10.
Extract of a leiterfJVo. 165^ from Mr. Gallatin to Mr. Mams, dated
1 9th October, 1820.
" From conversations with him (Mr. de Neuville) and with the Duke
of Richelieu, I am induced to believe that this Government refused to
4
26 [91]
separate in the negotiation, the question relative to the Louisiana treaty
from that of discriminating duties, less with a view to insist on their
construction of the treaty than from the hope that the United States
Avould make concessions in some other respect, in order to obtain from
France a relinquishment of her pretensions under the article inquos
tion."
No. 11.
Extract of a letter, J\i'*o. 164 ^ from Mr. Gallatin to Mr, Adams, dated
&3d October, 1820.
"I had the honor, on the 20th instant, td receive your despatch No.
24, and addressed, on the 22d, to Mr. Pasquier, the letter of which
a copy is enclosed. Its object, Mr Hyde de Neuville not having then
left Paris, was to induce this government to give him rational in-
structions. I had the same evening a short conversation with Mr.
Pasquier, in which he used conciliatory language, but said that it
appeared absolutely necessary to have some explanation on the 8th
article of the Louisiana treaty, and drew a distinction between our
old discriminating and our new tonnage duty, with reference to the
privileges granted to France by that article. I have thought, upon re-
flection, that there might have been some foundation for that distinc-
tion, so far at least as our new tonnage duty exceeded tliat which it
was intended to countervail. But the objection was not at all made
on the receipt of the act of Congress; it was thought more eligible
to retaliate than to discuss; arid France, after having laid her one
hundred francs duty, has at least now no right to complain.
Mr. de Neuville called on nie since the receipt of your despatch.
Nothing very interesting occurred in the course of the conversation.
I discovered, however, tliat, when he had spoken of the privileges
granted to France by the Lousiar)a treaty as being inconsistent with
tiie Constitution of the United States, he alluded to an argument
which you had used. I cannot help thinking that there has been in
that respect some misconception on his part. It is very clear that
the United States could not make, now that Louisiana is a state, a
treaty conlaining conditions similar to those in question; but I do not
perceive that the constitution prevented them from acquiring on those
terms Louisiana, when a foreign colony; still lessthat they could,
without a compensation, be relieved from any obligation, on the
ground that the constitution did not permit its performance. In
your despatch to me you consider as contrary to our constitution those
privileges only claimed by France, which are founded on an inad-
missible construction of the treaty. And the only argument, which,
it seems to me, can be drawn from' the constitution, is, that the article
must remain as it is, and that the Government of the t nited States
cantiot, even if so disposed, give to it a more extensive construction
in favor of France than its literal and natural sense will admit.'*
[91] %7
No. 11— a.
Mr. Gallatin to Baron Pasquier,
Paris, 22d October, 1820.
Sir: I had the honor, in my letter of the 15th of September last,
to state to your Excellency the reasons which induced me to believe
that the view taken by my Government, of the 8th article of the
Louisiana treaty, essentially differed from that in which it seems to
have been considered by His Majesty's Government. A despatch
lately received from the Department of State at Washington, leaves
no doubt on that point.
The Secretary of State alludes in it to the correspondence between
him and Mr. Hyde de Neuville — not for the purpose of giving me
any instruction in that respect: for he does not seem to have presumed
that this subject would be blended with that of the discriminating
duties, or be discussed here^— but in reference to a protest intended to
be made by His Majesty's consul at New Orleans, against the execu-
tion of the act of Congress, of the 15th of May last. And he in-
forms me, in the most explicit terms, that the construction put on the
article in question by Mr. Hyde de Neuville, is considered as inad-
missible by the Government of the United States.
I have thought it my duty to make this communication to your Ex'
cellency, because it thence appears extremely improbable, that those
diflSculties which have produced a state of things so injurious to the
commercial relations of the two countries, can be adjusted at Wash-
ington, if his majesty's government shall insist on not separating that
subject from the discussion of the article in question, and shall ad-
here to that construction of the article which had heretofore been
contended for.
I request your Excellency to accept, &c.
ALBERT GALLATIN.
No. 12.
Extract of a letter^ M. 172, from Mr. Gallatin to Mr Adflms, dated
February Ut, 1821.
"You will have seen by my despatch, No. 164, that I had an oppor-
tunity, before Mr. de Neuville's final departure, to make use of your
letters relating to the 8th article of the Louisiana treaty, and that
this Government ought not to entertain any expectation of obtaining
any concessions on our part in that reipect."
28 ^ [91]
No. 15.
Extract of a letter from Baron de Keuville to Mr. Mams, dated Feb-
ruary 25d, 1821.
**As I am solicitous to accelerate as mucli as possible the progress
of the negotiation, 1 now take the liberty of requesting an answer to
the letter which I had the honor of addressing to your Department
on the 16th of June, 1818, relative to the eighth article of the Louis-
iana treaty. Should the Federal Government admit the interpreta-
tion given to this article on the part of France, it would bf un-
necessary to discuss the subject any further; but if, after a thorough
investigation, it should still adhere to a contrary opinion, you will
think with me, sir, that it is material to both parties, to know Jiow
far they disagree on this very important article of the treaty. Both
Governments having the same honest intentions, every point in dis-
pute ought to be easily and speedily settled. What I ask, sir, evca
in its most limited sense, is the right secured to France by the eighth
article of the Louisiana treaty, and in what cases is our navigation to
obtain its enjoyment. It would appear to me that the negotiators
on either part, had but one and the same object, in inserting the 7th
and 8th articles, which express intention was to secuie forever to
French vessels in the ports of the ceded territory, a real advantage
over those of all other nations, and in my opinion the very expres-
sions of the article, establish in the most positive terms that intention
of the negotiators."
No. 14.
Extract of aletterf JVo. 174 ^ from Mr. Gallatin, to Mr, Adams, dated
29th March, 1821.
"In a conversation with one of the ministers, whom I have reason
to believe to be desirous that an arrangement should take place, |he
suggested a prolongation for a limited time of the privileges which
had, by the Louisiana treaty, been secured during twelve years to the
French commerce in that quarter, as a substitute to the provision
which allows permanent advantages, to it, and as a mode of concili-
ating the diflfei'ence of opinion of the two governments on that sub-
ject. Another person of great respectability, and very friendly to
the United States, alluded to the necessity of some concession on our
part, which miglit enable this government to come to an arrangement
without abandoning altogether the ground they had taken."
|_ 91 ] 29
No. 15.
Mr. Adams to Baron Hijde de J\''euville.
Dkpartmeist of State,
Washington, March 29, 182L
Sir: By the 7th article of the treaty of SOth April, 180:3, hy
which Louisiana was ceded to the United States, certain special
privileges within the ports of the ceded territory were stipulated '\n
favor of the sliips of Fiance and Spain, for tlie term of twelve
years," and by the eighth article of the same treaty, it is further
provided, that ''in future and forever aftei- the expiration of (he
twelve years, the ships of France shall be treated upon the footing
of the most favored nations in the port:i abovementioned."
In your note of the 15th of Ueceniher, 1817, you demanded, upon
the allegation of this article, that the advantages conceded to the
English nation, in all the ports of the Union, should he secured to
France in those of Louisiana. The citation of the words of the
article would of itself be an answer to the claim. The stipulation
of the 8th article is in its terms limited to grants of favors in the
ports of Louisiana. The seventh article had secured to French and
Spanish vessels in those ports, peculiar privileges, to the exclusion of
the vessels of other nations; and the object of. the eighth article was
evidently to provide, that, after the expiration of those twelve years,
no such peculiar privileges should be granted in the same ports, to tlic
vessels of any other nation, to the exclusion of tiiose of France, llie
whole scope of both the articles, is, by their letter and spiiit, limited
to special favors, and privileges granted in those particular ports.
The claim of France, therefore, is not, and cannot be, by a7iJ/ con-
struction of the eighth article, to enjoy in the ports of Louisiana, the
advantages conceded to any other nation in all tiie ports of the LmoTj,
butonly that the sMps of France should be entitled to the special ad-
vantages conceded to the sfiips of other nations in the ports of Loui-
^^^Were it then even true, that the English or any other nation en-
ioyed, by virtue of general stipulations of treaties, advantages in all
the ports of this Union, over other nations^ inasmuch as they would
not be favors specially limited to the ports of Louisiana, or granted
with any special reference to them, they could neither by the letter
nor the spirit of the Louisiana treaty, give to France any just claim
to the special participation, in those particular ports, of advantages
there eiljoyed only by general arrangements, coextensive with the
whole Union. ^, ^,„ , ,q,-
But; in the answer from this Department, of the 23d December, 181,,
to the'note of Mr. de Neuville,of the 15th of that month, it wasaver-
red, and it is now repeated, that the ships o France a-'^' ^''f'. '^^^^
the expiration of the twelve years, stipulated by the seventh a.ticleot
80
[91]
the treaty, uniformly have been, treated upon the same footitiff of
the most favored nation in the ports of Louisiana- That thev will
continue to be so. France may be assured, not only from that sa-
cred reprd for the obligation of treaties, which is the undeviatinff
principle of the American Government; but from a maxim founded
in that justice, which is at once the highest glory and the soundest
policy o( nations, that every favor granted to one, ought equally to be
extended to all.
It is no exception, but an exemplification of this principle, that the
vessels of England, Prussia, the Netherlands, and the Hanseatic cities,
pay in the ports of this Union, including those of Louisiana, no other
or higher duties than the vessels of the United States. This is not a
Javov, but a bargain. It was offered to all nations, by an actof Con-
gress, of od March, 1815. Its only condition was rmwroci/i/. It
was always, and yet is, in the power of France, to secure, this advan-
tage to her vessels. It always depended upon her will alone, to abol-
n 77^. r'"'""..""*'"-?. '^"*^'' "P^'-ating against her ships in the
United States. Great Britain, Prussia, the Netherlands, the Han-
seatic cuies, accepted the proffer, and granted the equivalent. Had
l^rance seen fit also to accept it, the American Government would
have hailed the acceptance, not as a favor, but as equal justice. They
were far l/om anticipating that, instead of this, France would found,
upon equal reciprocity offered to all mankind, a claim to special pri-
vileges never granted to any. Special, indeed, would be the favor.
been Jotn J' *" ^ ?''"" ""l ^'''' ^''^' ^"^ ^"^» "^ ^'^^^ which ha^
been sold at a fair price to another.
English vessels, therefore, enjoy in the ports of Louisiana, no fa-
vors, which are not equally enjoyed by the vessels of France: nor da
tJiey enjoy any reduction of duties, which French vessels mikt n6t,
at the option of their own Government, have enjoyed at any time since
e3d<.t March, 1815. That France did not think proper to accept
the offer, is not mentioned with a view to reproach. France consuU
ed what siie thought to be her own interest, and, instead of reciprocity,
aggravated discriminating duties to prohibition. She exercised 1^;
rights. B.i If in levying those prohibitory duties, there was disfa-
vor to the United States surely, as little can it be alleged, tha the
^tention of reciprocal advantages to all, is a grant to al.y one of a
JuiViSimUVn' 7^^^ ?!'^r^' deNenville, dated the 18th of
June, 1818. to the letter from this Department, of the 23d of Decern-
' ar?he';;3i e"' ' ''"rV'^ claimiJig/orewr, in the ports of W
siana, the full enjoyment of every advantage enjoyed by any other
nation, in all the ports of the Union, as the p?ice of equivalent advan-
tages secured to the United Statas, still claims nothing gratuitous,
nasmuch as the equivalent for this special advantage to F^ance/wa,
already paid ,n the cession of Louisiana itself. This idea not on'v
contradicted by the whole tenor of the LouisianaTreaty and by U e
pec.al and obvious purport of the seventh and eighth articles, but I
hesitate not to aver, that, if the American Government had bieved
[91]
31
*'r}^ to 1,e miscentible of such a construction, and had those ar-
those articles to be suscepiioie ^^ew/iole, price of the cession of
tides alom been presented o them as the p ^^^^^^^^ ^^^
Louisiana, they never would l'^^^ '^^^^ f^^^ t he etfect of the cession of
such terms would not only »^fy%tt would oto.w have been in di-
the province in /wii soverngiitj; they ^""\' ""^g?'^^^^^^ they would
;.ct\iolationoftheconstituUono th^^^^^^^^^
have been a surrender of oi^e of ^eh.^h^^^^
of th s whole nation. 1 hey ^o"'" "l.^th hut France, for any advan.
from contracting with any P^^^/'^" ^J ^^^tte^
tage in navigation, however gtea , ^^"^ ^tl^ ^^'^ ^^ t, conclude a
It would have been little short of «^ /-^'H^^^^^^^ ^ov what else
commercial treaty wmi^^^^ of advantages
are commerc a trea es, i la ^j^^^i^^^ f,„,„ others tor
for equivalents? ^f ^ ^^^ ^' ^ ,^tl,e obligation of tl.is article, to be
equivalents, were, by .y„^^\^^P5,"\ „ ., » ^^^,i,\ have been secured
states, a formal abdication of tl.e.r own ^^^.^^^^^ .^ .^
^Tnt'^thaV n:Xr\ Itarr^^^^^^^^^^^^ i^ any respect as
apparent, that "5'\'f ° ^.^lent for the cession of Louisiana. 1 he
forming a part of the ^^"'™' „• „le„ts paid for it, were not even
cession of Louisiana, and the equvaen^^^^^^^^ ^^^ ^^^^
included in the same t''^^^/ ./^'f^^X^^ of the same date. The
the equivalents -^^l^^l^^.l'^^^^^^ in the treaty of cession,
seventh and eighth ^^^^'^'f ^^J^'J*^, f^„,e ,ts. The three instruments
and not in the conventions "J/^";;^;^;^^ oneai.d the same trans-
sSisXiT^^^^i rat;, r, •::;
tijj^f-tt!::^^;^:^.^^^^^
ed to this tacit evidence '" ^he '^^^^^^YJt'j.e motives by which it was
article bears upon its face the a^^^^^J'^; .. j ..ecinrociilly advan-
dictated. Its introductoi7 worlds are^J^t-^^^^
tageous to the commerce of Fance and Uie ^^^.^^^^ ^.^^^^ .^ ^^^^
ag^'e the communication of ^'th nations ^.p^ngements re-
country ceded by the P''7^"\ ^^^^^^^^^^ agreed on." This is
lative to the commerce of both "aU""« "'*^ ■ ^l iV)r its subsequent
the motive specially ^^^'S^^Viil ant^^e > le c mmerce of France
3tipulations. 1 he r^^'P-'^^J/;^,^,^' ffe, om-a^ement of their com-
and the United States was the end the eco g ^^^^ ^^^^
munications/orahm^^^rffimei hecou.^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^.^._,^j,^
And the eighth article, followi gas a co^^^^^
8^ [ 91 ]
>vorcl be found, importing that thoy were understood by either party
as forming any portion of the equivalent for the cession.
In the "note of Mr. Hyde de NeuviHe of the l6th of June, 1818,
this claim of France to enjoy for nothing and forever, in the ports of
Louisiana, every advantage whiclj the United States may concede for
a full equivalent to any other nation, in all the ports of the Union,
is supported by a supposed peculiarity in the phraseology of the ar-
ticle, by virtue of which it is claimed. To support this pretension,
it is asserted, that, "in uUtUe. treaties between France and the Unit-
ed States, the condition of reciprocity is mentioned in the most formal
manner; that they all expressly ^'aj, that the two contracting parties
shall reci|)rocally enjoy the favor granted to armther nation, gra-
iuitoiisly if the concession is gratuitous, or by granting the same com-
pensdtioii if the concession is conditional."
The mutual stipulations of being treated as the most favored nation,
is not, in all the treaties between France and the United States, ac-
companied by the express declaration that the favor granted to a third
party shall he extended to France oi* the United States gratuitously,
if tlie grant is gratuitous, and upon granting the same compensation
if it be conditional. This explanatoiy clause is expressed, in terms,
only in one ti'eaty between the United States and France, and that
vasthe first treaty ever contracted between them; namely, the treaty
of amity and commerce, of 6th Febi*uary, 1778, in its second article.
It has never been repeated in any of the subsequent treaties between
the parties. It was alluded to^ adopted, and applied to consHlar pre-
eminences, powers, authority, and privileges, by the 15th article of
the consular convention of the 1 4th November, 1788. But in vain
will any such clause be sought for in the convention of 30th Septem-
ber, 1800; the woids of the sixth article of which, areas follows:
*< Commerce between the parties shall be free. The vessels of the two
nations, and their privateers, as well as their prizes, shall be treated,
in their respective jiorts, as those of the nation tiie most favored, and,
in general, tUi two parties shall enjoy, in the ports of each otiier, in
regard to commerce and navigation, the privileges of the most favored
nation." There is not a vtord in this article, nor in the whole con-
vention, saying that these favors shall be enjoyed freely, if freely
granted to others, or uj)on granting the same condition, if condition-
ally granted; yet who caji doubt tiiat this was implied in the article,
though not expiessed?
Tiie fact, then, in regard to this argument, being directly the re-
Terse of the statement in the note of Mr. de Neuville, of I6th June,
1818, it cannot escape his attention how forcibly the argument recoils
upon itself. If from the uniform use of the explanatory clause, in all
the piccediiig treaties, stated in the note as a fact, its omission in the
Louisiana treaty could have warranted the inference that no such
qualification was intended by it, with much stronger reason may it
be concluded, that, as the parties had before repeatedly contracted the
same engagement, at one time with, and at another without, the ex-
planatory clause, but always intending the same thing, this variety
[91]
sa
in the modes of expression, was considered by them as altogether im-
material, aiid that, whetiier expresspdor not, no claini to a favor en-
joyed by others, could justly be advanced by virtue of any such sti-
pulation, without granting the same equivalent with which the
advantage had been purchased.
Tiiere is tlicretbre no necessity for supposing any forgetfulness on
the part of tiie negotiators of the treaty of cession, nor of recurring
to any supposed distinction between the construction applicable to a
conveotion of commerce and to a treaty of sale. It has been proved,
that neither the seventh or eighth article was ever understood by either
party, as forming any partof tlie equivalent for the cession; that tlie re-
ciprocity of the 7th article, is expressed upon its face; and tliat the
eighth, as a consequence from it, only stipulated that after the period of
special privilege in those special ports should have expired, no such
privilege, in those particular ports, should be granted to other nations,
without being made common to the vessels of France. If it be admitted,
that, in a contract of sale, nothing can be understood by implication
(sous entendu,) this principle could be no less fatal to the claim of
France, than every other admissible rule of reason: for what implica-
tion could be morcTiolcnt and unnatural'than that, by a stipulation to
treat the ships of France on the footing of those of the most favored
nation in thejwrts of Louisiana, the United States had disabled them-
selves, forever, from purchasing a commercial advantage from any
other nation, without granting it gratuitously to France?
That the Senate, in 1803, did not, formally, object to the stipu-
lations of tlicse 7th and 8th articles, must be ascribed to its never
having entered into the imagination or conception of that bod y, that
such a claim as tliat now^ attempted to be raised from it by France,
was either expressed in, or to be implied from, thenh Whether the
special privileges, granted for twelve years to the ships of France
a)u! Spain, in those ports, were compatible 'with the Constitution of
the United States, or wiih the other article of the freaty, by which
the inhabitants of the ceded territory wei-e to be incorporated into
the Union, and admitted, according to the principles of that Consti-
tution, to the enjoyment of all the rights, advantages and immuni-
ties, of citizens of the United States, might he, and was, a question
to the Senate in deliberating upon the Treaty. It was a question of
construction upon a clause of the Constitation; and that construc-
tion prevailed, with which the terms of the Treaty were reconci-
lable to it, and to themselves. But whether the claim now advanced
by France, is reconcilable with the Constitution of the United States,
is no question of construction, or of implication. It is directly re-
pugnant to the express provision, that the regulations of commerce
and revenue, in the ports of all the States of the Union, siiall be the
same.
The admission of the state of Louisiana, in the year 1812, on an
equal footing tvith the original states, in all respects whatsoever, does
not impair the force of this reasoning.* Although the admission of
French and Spanish vessels into their ports, for a short remnant of
5
a4 C 91 ]
time, upon diffcrrnt regulations of commerce and revenue, from
those prescribed in the pjrts of all the other states in the Union, gave
them a preference not sanctioned by the Constitution, and upon
whicli tlie other states might, had they tliought fit, liave delayed the
act of admission until the expii-ation of tlie twelve years; yet, as this
V as a condition, of wliich tlie otlicr states might waive the benefit,
for the sake of admitting Louisiana sooner even than rigorous obli-
gation would iuive rerpiired, to tlie full enjoyment of all the rights
of American citizens, this consent of the only interested party to
anticipate the maturity of the ado]>ted ciiild of the Union, can be
consiclercd in no other light than alVioidly grant, m advance, of that
whirh, in the lapse of three short years, might have been claimed
as of undeniable right.
The Government of the United States have fulfilled, and will ful-
fil, the eighth article of the Louisiana treaty, according to its plain
and obvious meaning. The ships of France are and will be treated,
in the ports of Louisiana, on the footing of the most favored nation.
The ships r)f no nation enjoy any special favor in the ports of Louisi-
ana. The ships of all nations are. in the ports of Louisiana, on the
same footing, as in the ports of all the other states in the Union.
The ships of all nations, in all the ports of the Union, enjoy the same
advantages, which the nations to which they belong, concede to the
veesels of the United States in return. The favor, and the only favor
they enjoy, is reciprocity. That favor, the American Government
extend tu French vessels, and ask no better of France than to ac-
cept. But the American Government catmot grant, as a gratuitous
favor to France, that which they have conceded for a valuable con-
sideration to others. No such stipulation is expressed in the Leuisi-
ana treaty: no such stipulation can, from all or any of its articles be
justly inferred. In this, as in all their commercial relations with
France, their most fondly cherished hope is mutual friendship, their
most earnest desire equal reciprnciiy.
I pray you, sir, to accept the assurance of my distinguished con-
sideration.
JOHN QUINCY ADAMS.
No. 16.
Baron de JVenville to Mr. Mams,
[TIIANLATION.]
March 30/^, 1821.
Sih: I have received your letter, dated yesterday, in answer to
mine of June I6th, 1818, and 23d ultimo. I shall have the honor to
L913 35
reply, and believe it will not be difficult fir me to shew that all my
citations are correct. Not only all tlie Treaties between France and
this country, (those, it is well understood, which could admit (if such
a clause,) but even all the Treaties and Conventions between the Unit.
ed States and European Governments, or nearly aV, express in posi-
tive or in equivalent terms, what I have stated.
I will add, that the force of my argument would not be impaired,
even admitting the sense attributed by you to the paragrajjli which
seems to have more particularly fixed your attention. 1 shall return
in a future note to this point of the discussion, as well as to all the
others, and shall draw my best arguments from the very acts of the
Federal Government, and from the opinions of the most enlightened
men in the country. A better source could not be resorted to.
Allow me, Sir, in the mf^aii time, to make an observation, suggested
b}' the following passings of your letter: " The Government of the
United States have fulfilled, and will fulfil, the 8th article oftiie Louisi-
ana Treaty, according to its plain meaning. The ships of France are,
and will be, treated in the ports of Louisiana on the footing of the most
favored nation " You had stated in your note of December, 1817:
*' It is true, that the terms of the 8th article are positive and uncon-
ditional; but it will be readily perceived, that the condition, though not
expressed in the article, is inherent in the advantage claimed under it.
If Bi'itish vessels enjoyed in the ports of Louisiana any gratuitous
favor, undoubtedly French vessels would, by the terms of the article,
be entitled to the same."
In your letter of yesterday, you say that "from a maxim founded
in that justice whicli is at once tiie highest glory and the soundest
poliry of nations, that every favor granted to one, ought equally ta
be extended to all."
" It is no exception, but an exemplification of this principle, that
the vessels of England, Prussia, the Netherlands, and the Hanseatic
Towns pay in the ports of this Union, including those of Louisiana,
no other or higher duties than the vessels of the United States.
Tliis is not a favor, but a bargain." I cannot, I must C(»nfess, view
those matters in the same light, nor especially can admit your con-
clusion. But even admitting that, in reality, the four instances
abovementioned are merri excepted cases; allowing that England,
Prussia, the Netherlands, and tlic Hanseatic Tovvns, enjoy no gratu-
itous privilege or right in the United States; that they are not favor-
ed nations, and that, as you assert, Sir, This is not a favors but a bur-
gain: Admitting even'your doctrine, that gratuitous ronccssions
alone constitute what is called favor, whereby a nation becomes, in
the ports of another, either a favored nation, or the most favored na-
tion: Allowing all this, still, how would it be possible to reconcile
the interpretation which the difference between the duties now paid in
the ports of Louisiana by French vessels, and those paid in the same
ports by the vessels of such nations as have neither Convention nor
Treattj, nor have made any bargain with this Republic?
36 C ^i ]
I am not apprized that Russians, Spaniards, Portuguese, or other
nations, having none but such like relations with this country, have
been made to pay a duty of eighteen dollars per ton in the ports of
Louisiana; and yet this duty is frequently required of the vessels of
that nation, wiiich, by virtue of an authentic instrument, and of a po-
sitive contract, is entitled to be treated in future and for fver in the
said ports upon the footing of the most favored nation. Although
nothing can be more clear, or better established, tiian the right of
France; *< This is not a favor, but a bargafn." It was not without
motive that the Charge d'AITaires of his Majesty took care to observe,
in his letter of the 18th of July last, that this was not the case of
a favor refused, but that of a charge imposed, by one party on the
other.
Such a state of things, whatever may be tlie interpretation given
to tlie 8th article, is so injurious to the rights of France, and so very
contrary to the equity and honesty of tlie Federal Government that
I cannot but flatter myself that the answer now solicited to this letter,
and to that of Mr. Roth, of the 18th of July, will be such as to give
full satisfaction on this point. And if France should not be made to
enjoy immediately the right which I claim, most assuredly she can-
not be denied; in the mean time, the enjoyment of that which is ac-
knowledged.
I have the honor to be, Sir, &:c.
G. flYDE DE NEUVILLE,
No. 17.
Baron de ^"enviUe to Mr. Adams, dated
May 15, 1821.
Siu: I have now the honor to ansv.er your letter of the 29th of
March last.
The terms of tlie eighth article of the Louisiana treaty are as fol-
low: " In future, and for ever, after the expiration of the tv^elve
years, the ships of France shall be tfeatcd upon the footing of the most
favored nations, in the ports above mentioned;" meaning the ports of
the territory ceded by France, Louisiana. It evidently results from
the terms of this article, tliat the French nation is to be treated, in fu-
ture, and forever after^ upon tlie footing of the most favored nations,
not in all tlie ports of the United States, but in tliose of Louisiana.
But, what is meant — what can be understood by the terms, being
treated upon the footing of the most favored nations'^
Is there but one way of obtaining the right to be so treated? Or,
may it be held by more than one title? Upon consulting the various
treaties made between different nations, and particularly those which
the United States have entered into with European powers, I find in
[ 9i ] 37
almost all of them, a definition of what is meant by being treated up-
on the footing of the most favored nations, and these definitions are so
precise, tiiat I do not see how any controversy can arise on that point.
In most cases relating to the rights and privileges of the most favored
nations, the parties even gown to explain, that the favor shall be free,
if freely granted to another nation; or upon granting the eame com-
pensation if the concession be conditional: from which \ conclude,
tliat the right to be treated upon the footing of the mo^U favored nations,
may be enjoyed in two ways, either gratiiltously or conditionally.
You, moreover, appear tome, sir, to admit this very material point:
you even declare, (and in this opinion I may readily acquiesce, I have
at least no interest in opposing it,) that it is not necessary that the
terms gratuitously or conditionally, be expressed in tlic agreement;
meaning, I suppose, where the coisdition of reciprocity is stipulated.
Alluding to the convention of tbe 30th of September, 1800, you say:—
** There is not a word in the whole convention saying, that th^se fa-
vors shall be enjoyed freely if freely grar>tcd. or upon granting the
same condition if conditionally granted. Yet who can doubt that this
was implied in the article, though not expressed?'' The article does,
in my opinion, contain what I attributed to it, if not in express, at
least in equivalent terms; but let us examine what you have stated in
your answer. In the article, it is expressly said, that the two parties
'shall reciprocally enjoy ^ each in the ports of the other, as far as regards
commerce and navigation, the pririlcges of the most favored nations.
It goes no further; it gives an ex})lanation as to gratuitous or condi-
tional favors, and perhaps it was unnecessary here. Fet, do you add,
W'hf) can doubt that this was implied in the article, though not expressed?
This admission determines the first point, viz: tbat there are two
modes of being treated upon the footing of the most favored nations;
and tliat tlie rights resulting therefrom may be enjoyed either freely^
if freely granted, or conditionally, if granted upon condition to other
nations.
We shall soon have to examine whether France has or has not,
from the very nature of tlie contract of 1803, a right to be treated
in the ports of Louisiana, upon the footing of the most favored nations,
unconditionally, and without further compensation on her part. This
second question is of no less importance: but I think it right to de-
tach it from that which now engages my attention, and the solution
of which must precede all further discussion. Permit me, sir, here
to suggest an observation which has struck me as being very forcible.
If France, by virtue of the treaty of 1803, wliich secured her the
rights and piivileges of the most favored nations, has had a right to
enjoy every favor freely, if freely granted to other nations, or upon
granting the same'conditiGn, if conditionally granted, upon what prin-
ciple, after the treaty of 1803, which secures the same treatment in a
still more solemn manner, should she be reduced to the enjoyment of
only such favors as are granted f:'eel> to other nations? " If British
vessels enjoyed in the ports of Louiiiiana any graUiitoug favor, un-
doubtedly, French vessels would, by the terras of ihe article, be eu>
38 [91]
titled to the same." It appears to me, tli'at, after your explanation
just above cited, it would be equally allowable to say, »' if Btitish
vessels enjoyed, in the poets of Louisiana, any conditional fa. or, un-
doubtedly Frenoli vessels would, by the terms of the article, lie en-
titled to the same."
Thus, sir, I hope you will admit, with me, the iirst question to be
sufBcientIy%ettled. France is to enjoy, in future, a.n(\ forever, in the
ports of the territory ceded by her, the privHes;es of the most fuvored na-
tions; ami, as tiie treatment or favor which a nation may receive, is
either free or conditional, it follows, that France has a ri^-ht to be treat-
ed in Louisiana upon the footing of the most favored nation, either fi-ee-
ly or conditionally, unless it be proved that her contract is to form
an exception; that she has already /wi(/ for the privilege which she
claims, and has, therefore, a right to be treated, without fnrthercom-
;;f(tsai/ou. upon the footing of the most favored nation. This, sir, is
what I think I can easily prove.
In the mean time, it is evident not only that French vessels do
not enjoy in the ports of Louisiana the privileges reserved by FriUice,
but that they are even deprived of those which cannot be disputed.
I liave already shown that, far from being treated upon tlie footivig
of the most favored iiatiims, France at this time, is of all nations that
which is most unfavorably treated in Louisiana; which forms a strik-
ing Contrast with the precise stripulations of the 8th article of the
Louisiana Treaty.
But what nations are, (compartively with France) treated upon
the most favoured footing, in the ports of Louisiana? All those. I
answer, which enjoy in the said ports, whether freely or conditionally,
by virtue of treaties or without stipulation to that elFect, any rights,
favors, or ])rivileges, denied to France. Hence, as it so happens, at
this time, that the vessels of four different nations pay in the ports
of Louisiana no other or higher duties than those paid by American
vessels, 1 have surely a right to claim the same advantage for our
navigation, by virtue of the 8th article of the Louisiana Treaty.
You will observe, sir, that I do not speak of all the ports of the United
States. Finding this last phrase repeated several times, and under-
lined in your letter of the 29th. I have some fear not to have been
rightly understood, or I'ather not to have used expressions sufficiently
distinct. F'rance has nothing to ask, she claims nothing, in all the ports
of the United States, She has not to examine whethei' any or several
nations indiscriminately enjoy in these, any riglits or pi'ivilcges, nor
on what conditions such rights or privileges may liave been granted.
But, as the ports of Louisiana are of the number of all the ports of the
United States, and as France has a right to be treated in tliose upon
the footing of the most favored nations, she claims that right as soon
as it is found that the vessels of any other nation are treated tlicre
more favorably than hers. But I find, sir, in your letter: — "were
it even true, that the English or any other nation enjoyed, by virtue
of general stipulations of treaties, advantages in all the ports of tliis
Union, over other nations; inasmuch as they would not be favors spe-
[Ql] 89
cially limited to tlie ports of Louisiana, or granted with any special
rcfeience to thcni, they could, neither by the letter nor the spirit
of the Louisiiina Treaty, give to France any just claim to the special
pai'ticipation, in those particular ports, of advantages there enjoyed
only by general arrangements, co-cxtensi\ e with the whole Union."
It seems to me that it would have been useless and even perfectly idle,
to make any special mention of the ports of Louisiana in the treaties
and conventions by which certain rights, favors, or privileges are
granted in all the ports of the United States, since they are coujprised
witliin the denomination of the ports of the United States. Giving the
whole is giving every component part; and in such cases, the general
term necessarily embraces eveiy particular denomination. Let us sup-
pose a case. You make over to me conditionally the privilege of
hunting on one of your estates, situated in a certain district; I am to
enjoy this pri\ ilege if you grant it to others. Soon after, you sell or
make over to one of my neighboi's, the privile;g-e of hunting on all
your estates you hold in the same district. It is clear that my riglit
does not, on that account, extend to all your estates, but it certainly
does not include that which is specified in my contract or conveyance.
The favor is general for my neiglibors, but as it I'egards me, is only
speciali for the geneial term, I repeat it, necessarily embraces every
piirticular denomination. Sucii matters it is not thought necessary to
explain, because it is not expected that they can ever be subject to
discussion. But, suppose further, that tlie right which I so justly
claiu), was not even granted by you; that I held it only in my own light;
su})|)pse it to be an express reseiTution which I had thought it proper
to make on disposing in your favor of that estate, which I liad con-
sented to sell merely to oblige you and to suit your convenience; if I
yielded to your instant and pressing solicitations, if, in order to per-
suade me to sell this estate, you had gone so far as to offer me, not a
mere condtional right of chace, but that privilege, free from all charg-
es or conditions, to enjoy it with you, to the same extent as yourself, and
forever: If J can prove tliis last assertion by your own documents,
you will surely admit, Sir, that this is an indisputable, sacred right,
rather in the nature of property vested in me than a mere privilege
over yours. Tiiis is not a favor but a bargain.
What may now ap})ear a mere assertion, shall hereafter be proved.
<' You do me thehonoi- to state'* '• The stipulation of the eighth article
is in its terms limite;i to grants of favors in the ports of Louisiana.
Tlie 7th article has secured to French and Spanish vessels, in those
ports, peculiar privileges, to the exclusion of the vessels of other nations;
and the obje( t of the eighth article wai evidently to provide that, after
the expi.atitm of those tweh e years, no such peculiar privileges should
be grdiited. in the same ports, to the vessels of any other nation to the ex-
clusion of those of France, the whole scope of both articles is by their
letter and spirit limited to special favors and privileges granted in
those particular ports." I must confess, sir, that, so often as I have
read the vMghrh arti. le, I cannot discovei that it evidently states that,
after tiie expiration of those twelve years, no such peculiar privileges
40 r^i]
filioiiltl be granted, in the same ports to the vessels of any other nation,
to the exclusion of those of France. The article states — nothing can
be more clear, in future and forever, after the expiration of the twelve
years, the ships of France sliall be treated npon the fooling of the
most favored nations in the ports ahovc mentioned. Nothing what-
ever is said about peculiar favors 'granted in the same ports to the vessels
of any other nation; why then should we attrihnte to tiie article what
it (Joes not contain? I will add, what it could not express. And this I
sliall now prodeed to prove. When France disposed of Louisiana,
she cei'tainly was entitled to reserve any rights whatever in that pj'o-
viiice, whether special, gratuitous^ limited, or unconditional; she sold her
own pi-uperty, and had a right to fix its price, as the other jiarty was
free to accept or to decline the offer. I'hc express reservation made
by her in the firstplace, for twelve years, and then, on condition of cer-
tain ^M^ntH, forever after, was no more than a part of the price of the
territory ceded; and by no means a favor granted by one party and
received by the other.
"This stipulation was a part of the price of the territory; it was a
condition wliich the party ceding had a right to rerpiire, and to which
we had a right to assent; the right to acquire involved the right to give
the equivalent demanded." I shall have occasion to revert to this
opinion of one of the most distinguished men of the country, and
which is so much in point. But to proceed with my argument: it is
easy to conceive that France was entitled, when disposing of her pro-
perty, to reserve sach rights as she pleased, xviih or ivitliout recipro-
city, for a limited time or forever; *' this was a part of the price of the
territory:" hut, if as you observe, sir, there is an express provision
in the constitution that the regulations of commerce and revemie in
the ports nf alt the states of the fjnionshall be the same, it evidently fol-
lows til at no nation can acquire by treaty or connnercial convention,
in the ports of Louisiana alone, the advantage w hich France enjoys
there by special title, by virtue of a bargain and sale; wiiich in-
strument is singular, from its \cry nature, and cannot be repeated
in favor of any nation, whatever may be its connexion or commercial
interests with the United States; at least so far as respects the terri-
tory ceded by Fi'ance. If, therefore, no other nation can acquire in
the ports of Louisiana alone, w hether gratuitonshj or conditionally, the
special favor, or to speak more correctly, the right which France has
thought proper to reserve in those ports' '< in future and forever after,"
surely I am authorized to maintain not only that the 8th article does
Jiot, but even that it could not, admit of the meaning which is attribut-
ed to it. Can it be supposed that the American negotiators iiad pro-
posed to France to reserve an advantage or privilege which, accord-
ing to the Federal Constitution, could never be realized? To give
such an interpretation to this article would not be doing justice to
their lionesty; it surely must have some other meaning; why not then
adopt that w iiich is most natural. * We do not presume, says Vattel,
that sensible persons had nothing in view in treating together, or in
* Vattell, B, II. Ch. XVII. § 283.
[91 1 4£
forming any other serious agreement. The interpretation wliich ren-
ders a treaty null and without effect cannot then be admitted.
" Every clause should be interpreted in such a manner, as that it
may have its effect^ and not be found vain and illusive."* Let us then
leave to the eighth article its true sense; its expressions are clear and
distinct; and it is admitted that, inthe interpretation of treaiies.pads, and
2u-omfses, we ought not to deviate from the common use of the language :j
we also know that the first general maxim is, that il is not allowable
to interpret what has no need of interpretation;^, and you allow, Sir»
in your letter of the 23d of December, 1817. that the terms of the Sth
article are positive and unconditional. It being admitted that the
terms a!*e positive and unconditional, and since, in order to ascertain
the trne sense of a contract, attention ought to be paid, ^^principalhj to the
words of him who promises^ and since, on every occasion, when a per-
son has, and ought to have shewn his intention, we take for true against
him, what he has sufficiently declared,^ what motive can there be, for
denying France a I'ight established in positive and unconditional
terms, more esj)ecially when the intention of the American nego-
tiators, of those who promised, is sufficiently declared and perfectly
manifest? Ou this subject, it will soon be shown that the 8th article,
which, in ilself, is so precise as to require no corroboration, has, witlial,
by way of corollary, a document calculated to rentove every possible
doubt, if any could still remain. But, sir, you seem to think that
the 7th and 8th articles have never been, (in any respect) considered
* HIS forming part cf the equivalents fm- the cess'ion of Louisiana, and
that the cession was in one treaty, and the equivalents in two separate
conventions of the same date;" and finally, while admittiisg that the
three instruments form but one whole, as it is expressly dechired,
you add, ^'but the very form of the arrangements adopted by the par-
ties, shews their comhmi intention to regxdate the cession by one com-
pact, and the equivalents given for it by others." If we are ever to
deal in conjectures, why should we not say, for there would seem to
be more ground for the assertion, that the 7th and 8th articles of the
convention are the equivalents, and the two subsequent instruments
merely accessary, and the compliment of the bargain? We shall soon
find, that it is quite allowable to consider, as a mere accessary, what
you, sir, regard not only as the principal part, but even as the whole
of the compensation. But let us set every commentary aside, the con-
vention of 1803 cannot give rise to any mistake. The 7th and 8th
articles established, without the least ambiguity, the nature and condi-
tions of the rigiits reserved by France: the 9tii article coming next,
because what is most important should be settled before points of mr-
nor consequence, sutiiciently shews that the two supplementary instru-
ments are only matters of execution. They, in fact, contain calcuJa-
tionsof banking and exchange; and details of liquidation which could
not well have been comprised in the convention; and it is even, more-
over, fully explained, that those two instruments signed ou the same
*VAttelI. B. II. ch. xvii. §283 ndcm, id. id. 267.
fldem, Id. id. 272. It^lem, id. id. 266,
4ldem, id. id. 263.
6
42 r ^1 ]
day, ^* are to hove their exemtmn in the same manner as if they had
been inserted in the principal treaty, that they be ratijied ii^^the same
form, and in the same time and jointly."
The question, it ujipcars to me, may be viewed in two different
lights, and \vill still, in either case, e([ually resolve itself in favor of
the claims of Fiance. In the first place, France maybe considered
as ha\ing reserved certain rii2;iits of property, on disposing of her
sovei-eii^nty in Louisiana: and this would apj)ear the more cori'cct
view of the case: for, stiictly speaking, the 7th and 8tli articleu are
not Ihc equivalents of the cession accordi«ig to the true sense of the
treaty, as understood in 1803. In the other supposition, considering
the rth and Btli articles as part of the equivalents, tiie rights and
privileges therein secured to France will form, with the fifteen mil-
lions dollars, the full and entire compensation for the territory ceded
by her. 'Ihe privileges secured by the rth and 8th articles are still,
in either case, a riglit of property, of the most sacred nature.
*♦ This is not a favor, but a bargain. This is not a free gift, but the
fair price of that which has been sold.'* But suffer me, sir, to ob-
serve, that it is entirely erroneous to suppose that neither the seventh
nor eighth article was ever understood as forming a part of the equiva-
lent for the cession:" Not only it was understood they did, and was so
meant by the negotiators, but one of tliem, Mr. Livingston, while
offering to the French Government the express reservation of the
1 ights and privileges in question, as I shall hereafter prove, went so
far as to say that, by those meajis, France would enjoy all the advan-
tages of the colony, without incurring the expense of maintaining it.
Let US now add to Mr. Livingston's expressions, the formal opi-
nion of Mr. Randolph, and it will be no longer possible to maintain
that neither the 7th nor Sth article was ever considered as forming
part of the equivalent for iUe tGvr\U)vy Ci'dQ{\ by France. "I regard
this stipulation only as a part of the price of the territory; it was a
condition which the party ceding had a right to require, and to which
we had a right to assent. The right to acquire involved the right
to give the equivalent demanded. "( I) In your letterof the 29th of
Match last, as well as in your note of the 2Sd of December, 1817,
you advance that, if France could claim/oi-ercr in the ports of Louis-
iana, a privilege which could be denied to her in other ports of the
United States. France would, in such case, have transferred only an
imperfect sovereignty to this republic. I have already endeavored to esta-
blish, (letterof June J 6th, 1818,) that sovereignty shouUi c\ev be dis-
tinguished from property; in support of which, I could cite many in-
stances of transfers of »fuU and entire sovereignty ^ with the reserva-
tion of certain rights or privileges, in the nature of that which Fi-ance
holds in the ports of Louisiana. But the ^ery terms of the article
make it perfectly useless to discuss this point. The expression
forever is sufficiently explicit. In the ports of the territory ceded,
surely impliis that France is entitled to the privilege claimed by her
in Louisiana only, and it may therefore, at all times, be denied her
(1) Congress, House of Representatives. Mr. Randolph's dtbate of the Lou-
isiana treaty, Tuesday, October 25, 1803.
[911
48
in the other ports of the United States, unless some other treaty or
convention should intervene. You persist, also, in helieving that the
right claimed by Frairce, is in contradiction with the constitution of
the United States, which declares that " all duties, imposts, and ex-
cises, shall be uniform throughout the United States, and that no
preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue
to the ports of one state over those oi another.*' I could add several
very plausible arguments to those which 1 have already made against
that supposed i»iconsisf«u'i/j I might, perhaps, also, contend, with some
advantage, against the manner in vvliich you explain tl»e admission of
the state of Louisiana on an equal footing with the original sfates,
in alt respects whatever, in spile of the privilege which France and
Spain still enjoyed in its ports. I think I should have some right to
observe, that, in all cons/i<ji^io«r;/ questions, no modification is admis-
sible, HJid nothing is to be assumed except according to tliC forms re-
quired by the constitution itself; that representative Governments
scarcely admit of acts of mere courtesy; thivt they have the law alone
in view; and that if is, therefoi-e, to he presumed, that Congress would
not have emancipated, before its maturity, the adopted child of the
Union, nor have given him a pvefcrence not sanctioned bij the constitu-
tion, (1) if, in fact, the measure could have been considered as illegal.
But, sir, my Government /ms nothing to do with the question of con-
stitutionalitj^^; it is, therefore, [n'oj>er for me to decline discussing it,
and I shall be satisfied with recallittg some very respectable opinions
which militate in favor of my positions, or against what is objected to
them, and destroy all idea of inconsistency between the Zth and 8th
articles of the Louisiana treaty and the Federal Constitution.
(2) Mr. Rodney — '* It is contended that the United States have no
right to purchase territory: that they have no right to admit the peo-
ple of Louisiana to a participation of the rights derived tVom an admis-
sio}i into the Union; and that a peculiar favor is about being granted
to the j)orts of New Orleans, in violation of the Constitution. In the
view of the Constitution, the Union was composed of two corporate
bodies, of states and territories; a recuri-ence to t!ic Constitution,
will shew that it is predicated on the principles of tiie United States,
acquiring territory either by war, treaty, or purchase. Tlierc was
one part of that instrument within whose capacious grasp, all the.se
modes of acquisition were embraced. By the Constitution, Congress
have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to
pay the debts and provide for the conmion defence, and general wel-
fare of the United States. To provide for the general welfare; the
import of these terms is very comprehensive indeed. If this general
delegation of authority be not at variance with other particular pow-
ers sj)ecially granted, nor restricted by them, if it be not in any de-
gree comprehended in those subsequently delegated, I cannot, said Mr,
Rodney, perceive why. within the fair meaning of this genei-al provi-
sion, is not included the power of increasing our tcri-itory, if neces-
sary, for the general welfare or common defence. Suppose, for instance,
(1) It cannot, ir.ost assuredly, be correct to violate the prliiciples of the Constitu-
tion /or a day.— Mr. Griswold, "louse of Reprtsentatives, debate 95 Sber, 1803,
(2) Debate, 25 8ber 180.", House of 11. pVe.<-n\vives.
44 C^i ]
that Great Britain should propose to cede to us, the Island of New
Providence, so long the seat of pirates preying upon our commerce,
and the hive from which tliey have swarmed — will any gentlemen say
that we ouglit not to embrace the opportunity presented, as a defence
against further depredations? Suppose the Cape of Good Hope, where
our East Indiainen so generally stop, were offered to be ceded to us
by the nation to which it belongs, and that nation should say, on oup
possessing it. you shall declare it a free port. Is there any member
who hears me, that would contend that we were not authorized
to receive it, notwithstanding the great advantages it would ensure
to us.''
'* There is another sound answer to the objection of gentlemen:
thisis property ceded to lis by the power ceding it with a particular re-
servation.^^
(1) Mr. Smilie — " If the prevailing opinion shall be that the in-
haoiiunts of the ceded Tcrntoj-j, cannot he admitted under the consti-
tation, as it now stands the people of tlie United States can, if they see
fit apply a remedy by amending the constitution, so as to authorize
the adniission.''
(2) Mi-. Crowninsliield. — •* It surely cannot be unconstitutional, to
receive t.'ie ships of France or Spain, in the ports of the new territory,
upon any terms whatever. It is a mere condition of the purchase, and this
lioiise may or may not agree to it. Being a mere commercial regula-
tion, we have tlie power to give our assent or dissent to the article in
question; for I hold it to be correct doctiine, that this House, by the con-
stitution, have the power to regulate commerce w ith foreign nations,
as well as with the Indian Tribes, and that, whenever the President
and Senate make atreaty, involving any commercial points,our consent
is absolutely necessary to carry the treaty into effect. By giving our as-
sent, we do not injure the riglit of the other portsin theAtlantic states,
as the privilege is extended only to ports in the ceded territory. I con-
sider the eastern or carrying states, as particularly and deeply interested
in tJie acquisition of Louisiana; it is true, their ships already visit al-
most every part, but under many restrictions, and I wish to see them
sailing on the INlississippi, \\ ithout molestation or restraint."
*' 1 am in favor of adopting these treaties, and they shall have mj
hearty support."
(3) Mi-. Randol])h. — *<The unconstitutionality of this treaty,
is atteuipted to he sliown by the following quotation from
that instjtiment: No preference shall he given to the ports of
one state over those of another state, &c. &c. New Orleans,
tliei-efore, will enjoy an exemption. She is therefore a favored
port, in contradiction to the express letter of the Constitution. To
me, it appears that this argument has much more of ingenuity than
of force in it; more of subtlety than of substance. Let us suppose that
the treaty, instead of admitting Fi-encb and Spanish vessels, on the
terms projfoseii, merely convenanted to admit Amei-ican vessels on
equal terms, with those of France and Spain. If we acquired this
(1) Debate on the Lni'siana treaty, Tuesday, 8ber 25th, 180".
(2) Dfhatc on tlie !,< u siana treaty, Tuesday, Sber 25tli, 1803.
(3) Debute on the Louisiana treaty, :ruesdav, Sber 25lh, 1803.
[ 91 ] 45
light, divested of the country, it would have been considered and just-
ly, as an inipoi'tant privilege. Annex the territory tu it, and you can-
not accept it! You may, indeed, acquire either the commercial privi-
lege or the territory, without violating the Constitution, hut take them
both, and that instrument is infringed !
" I regai'd this stipulation only as a part of the price of the territory.
It was a condition wliich the party ceding had a right to require, and
to which we had a right to assent. The riglit to acquire, involved the
right to give the equivalent demanded. Mr. Randolph said, that he
expected to hear it said in the course of tlic debate, that the treaty in
question might clash with the treaty of London, in this particular:
he would, therefore, take this opportunity in remarking, that the pri-
vilege granted to French and S]»anish bottoms, being aparf of the con-
sideration for which we had obtained the country^ and tlie Court of Lon-
don being oilicially appi'ized of the tiansaction, and acquiescing in the
arrangement, it would ill become any member of that House to bring
forward such an objection,"
(1) JNIr. Adams. — " But it has been argued that tliebill ought not to
pass, because the bill itself is an unconstitutional, or, to use the words of
the gentleman from Connecticut, an extra constitutional act. It is,
thei-rfore. say they, anullity. We cannot fulii! our part of its conditions,
and on (vur failure in the performance of any one stipulation, France may
consider herself as absolved from the obligations of tiie whole treaty
on hers; I do not conceive it necessary to enter into the merits of the
treaty, at this time, The proper occasion for that discussion is past;
hut, allowing even that this is a case for which the Constitution has not
provided, it i!oes not, in my mind, follow, that the treaty is anullity or
that its obligations either on us, or on France, must necessarily be
cancelled. France never can have the right to come and say, I am
dischai'ged from the obligations of this treaty, because your Presi-
dent and Senate, in riitlV} ing it, exceeded their powers; for this
would be interfering in tlie internal arrangements of our Govern-
ment. It would be intermeddling in.questions with which she has no
concern, and which njustbe settled entirely by ourselves. The only
question for France, is, whether she has contracted with the Depart-
ment of our Government authorized to make treaties; and, this being
clear, her oidy right is to require that the conditions stipulated in our
name, be punctually performed; I trust they will be so performed, and
will cheerliillv lend my hand to every act necessary for the purpose;
Jor Iconsider'ihe object as of the highest advantage to us."
The opinions I have just cited, have so nnich weight, that I shall not
attempt to support them by further authority, and shall consider it as
sufficiently established:
1st. That the rights reserved by France are, in fact, properly
vested in her: or, in other words, that the territory of Louisiana is a
propertij ceded 7nth particular 7'eservation.
2dly. That if, in 1803, the Louisiana treaty was deemed unconsti-
tutional, bv some of the distinguished characters of the United States,
the great majority of Congress declared itself in favor of a contrary
doctrine.
(1) Senaie debate, Nov. 3i1, 1803.
46 [ 91 J
Sdly. That the (jucstion of consHtutiQualUij is, Jiml should be, foreign
to France, and that her only right is, to require that the conditions
stipnlated he punctually and faitlifally perlbrmed.
The French Government desires no more; and has, therefore, I
think, a riglit to expect, that a claim so well founded will cease to be
disputed.
I read in your letter, '* Nor is the proof, that these articles formed
no part, in the estimation of either of the parties, of the equivalents for
the cession,confined to this tacit evidence in the forms of the negoriation.
Tlie scventli article bears upon its face the avowal of the motives by
wliich it was dictated. Its introductory woi-ds are: » Js it is recipro-
cally advantageous to the commerce of France arul the United States, to
encourage the communication of both nations, for a limited time, in the
cx)untry ceded,' &c. kc. &c The reciprocal advantages to the commerce
of France and the United States was the end; the encoui-agement of
their communications /or a /imifed time in the country ceded, were the
means; and tlie eiglith article, following as a corollary from the
fMiventh," &:c. &c. &c.
I think I have ali'eady sufficiently sliewn, that the two parties in
the contract had but one and the same mode of undcrstauding the 7th
and 8th articles; but, even if I had not, in support of my opinion, those
already cited, and that of Mr. Livingston, which I shall soon have
occasion to produce, still would my position be incontrovertibly
proved by the very terms of tiiose articles.
You cite, sir, the introductory expressions of the seventh article.
Allow me to invite you to examine its conclusion, which appears to
me more explicit, and leaves no doubt as to the true intention of the
negotiators.
But perhaps it would be still hotter to cite the whole article. It
speaks for itself, and sufficiently explains what induced the negotia-
tors to fix the duration of the privilege conveyed by the seventh arti-
cle, and to assign no limitation to the right of property secured by
tJic eighth.
''As it is reciprocally advantageous to the commerce of France
and the United States to encourage the communication of both nations,
for a limited time, in the country ceded by the present treaty, until
general arrangements relative to the commerce of both nations may
be agreed on; it has been agreed between the contracting parties,
that the French ships, coming directly from France, or any of her
colonies, loaded only with the produce or manufactures of Prance, or
her said colonics; and tlie ships of Spain, coming directly from Spain,
or any of her cxdonies, loaded only with the produce or manufactures
of Spain, or her colonies, shall be admitted, during the space of twelve
years, in the ports of New Orleans, and in all other legal ports of?
entry within the ceded territory, in the same manner as the ships of
the United States coming directly from France or Spain, of
any of their colonies, without being subject to any other or greater
duty on merchandise, or other or greater tonnage, than those paid
by the citizens of the United States. During the space of time above
mentioned, no other nation shall have a right to the same privileges
in the ports of the ceded territory. I'ho tM-eJ ve years shall commence
[913
47
three months after tlie exchange of ratificatians, if it shall take place
in France, or three months after it shall have been notified at Paris
to the French Government, if it shall take place in the United States.
It is. howevci-, well understood, that the object of the above article is,
to favor the manufactures, commerce, freight, and navigation, of France
and if Spain, so far as relates to the importations that the French and
Spanish shall make into the said ports of the United States, without
in any sort affecting the regulations that the United States may make
concerning the exportation of the produce and merchandise of the
United States, or any rigiit they may have to make such regulations."
What appears most clearly deducible from the terms of this article
is, that it was thought advantageous to tlie commerce of France and
of the United States to encourage, in a verij special manner, the com-
munications of the two nations in the ports of the territory ceded;
that the piincipal object v\as to favorthe manufactures, the commerce,
and the shipping, of France and Spain. I can see no other advantage
resulting from the 7tli article for the United States, and it must be
admitted that its stipulations are, in fact, advantageous only to
France and to Spain." ]No reciprocity is granted to the United States,
either in the ports of France or in those of Spain. Their communi-
cation with France will, it is true, be more frequent, but only in the
ports of the ceded terriforij. Perhaps the ai'ticle might have been worded
with more care, but, after all, it expresses no more than I have
stated* If the avowed object of the article was to favor, in a special
manner, not only the commerce and navigation of France, but like-
wise the commerce and navigation of Spain, without any reciprocal
stipnlation for the United States, it is easy to discern what induced
the American negotiators to demaml that the privilege which France
iims not alone to enjoy in Louisiana should he limited in its duration;
more especially as, during that time, no other tuition could be admitted
to enjoy the same favor. But where the privilege ceased to be common
to Spain, the French Government, while consenting to modify it as
by the eighth article stipulated for the perpetual and unconditional
enjoyment of the right of property thus reserved, the eighth article
does not, as did the 7th, stipulate that other nations shall not be ti^at-
cd as favorably as those of France in the ports of the territory ceded
by her; such a condition could be imposed but for a limited time.
But it was natural that, when yielding to the solicitations of the
American negotiators, the French Government consented to cede
Louisiana, it should secure to France the right never to be treated
more unfavorably than any other nation in the ports of her former
colony, whether those favors be purchased or not by such nations;
that the transaction which, on the part of France, was at once a great
sacrifice and a striking proof of her friendship for these United
States, should not, in the end, turn to her detriment, but should, at
least, secure some lasting advantage to her commerce and naviga-
tion. All this is not mere conjecture of ray own; the facts are posi-
tive and clear; and every doubt must cease after attending to the
following sentiments, not of the French negotiators, but of Mr:
Livingston himself, iu the memorial addressed by him to the French
48 L 91 J
Government on this question. Is it advantageous for France to take
possession of Louisiana? He does not confine himself to proposing
that France should reserve, forever, and without rediwodty jor the
United States, tlie I'ight slipulatcd in the eigSith article, hut even that
which she suhsequejitly held hy the 7th article for twelve years only.
♦'Does France wish," says Mr. Livingston, -'to iiitroduce more
easily her productions into the western country; docs she desire to
accustom its iidiahihmts to her wines and manufactures, and to con-
quer tlie prejudices which the Americans entertain in favor of Eng-
lish goods, kc. kc. ike. All this can be accomplished onl:j by the ces-
sion of New Orleans to the United States, with tiic reserve of the
right of entry, at all times, for the ships and merchandises of France,
free from all other duties thasi those paid hy American vessels, liy
those means, American merchants estahltshed in New Orleans will
be interested in her trade; their capital, instead of heing sent to Eng-
land, will go to France, who will thus ciijoy all the advantages of the
colony, without incurring the expense requisite to support it, and the
money which America, by her industry, has drawn ftom Spain, will
be restored to France, which England, not enjoying the same advan-
tages, and paying higher duties, could not furnish them at tiie same
price." This passage of the memorial of the minister from the United
States, is sufficiently clear, and we shall see that he, furthermore,
takes care to corroborate its evident intention. Let us contijuie to
follow the course of his argument. *'The possession of Louisiana,"
does he say, '* is very important for France, if she draw s from it the
only advantage which sound policy would seem to indicate. I speak
of Louisiana only, not including Florida, because I do not consider
it as forming part of the territory ceded, as she may, hy means of the
cession, have a free trade on the Mississippi, if she knows how to avail
herself of the cii'cumstancc by an understanding with the United
States. She will find a market for a great variety of goods when she
shall have accustomed the inhabitants of the western country to pre-
fer them to English goods, which she can only accomplish by giving
them at a lower price, and this she can obtain only by giving Ame-
rican merchants an interest in selling them, in employing there their
capital, and by inducing the American Government to give them the
preference. All this can only be accomplished hy the cession of New
Orleans to the United States, reserving the right of entry, at all
times, free from all other duties than those paid by American vessels,
together with the free navigation of the Mississippi. This will give
her vessels the advantage over those of all other nations, and will not
only retain, but increase tlie capital of the city of New Orleans, and
hence, provisions for the islands will be purchased there at a lower
rate, and French manuiactui*es will be more easily introduced into
the western country, which the United States will have no interest
ii! preventing, every cause of rivalship between the two nations being
completely removed. Thus will France command respect without
inspiring fear to the two nations whose fiiendship is most important
to her commei'ce, and to the preservation of her colonics; and all these
advantages will be secured without incurring the expense of esta-
bli>shments which ruin the public treasure, and divert its capital from
[91]
49
its true object.'* What! Mr. Livingston, in order to induce France
to cede the territory of Louisiana, offci'S !ier more! frosn benevolent
motives, established in the very treaty itself, she subsetpiently con-
sents to accept or to reserve less, and even this shall be contested!
The article which secures this to Ijer sliall be said to have no mean-
ing, and be supposed to have exprcL-sed a nteie inipossibiiiiy ! J will
here dwell upon an idea tending, to explain liow such doubts could
Ijave arisen. Mr. Living!^ton's iueinoriiil tnust have been lost sight
of. 1 shall now proceed to discuss, as brieiiv as possible, the error
which you think you have discovered in the citation of my note of
June 16th, 1818. On tiiis subject, I have already observed, in my
letter of the 30th March last, that even it such an error had been com-
mitted, the strength of my argunicnt Vvonld not thereby have been
impaired. But let us examine, if, in fact, there be any such mis-
take; there are but eight treaties or contracts bct\Neen France and
the United States; four of these arc of such a nature as not to admit
of the clause in question; in two others it infonnallii expressed: in ano-
ther it is mentioned in equivalent terms; the last, which is the Louis-
ifina treaty, is alone sileui in that respect; and this silence furnisb.es.
of itself, an iri-esistibie argument: 1 was, therefore, I'ight, in saying
that all the treaties which could admitof that clause, mention, express-
ly, the condition of reciprocity. It is of no consequence that one
of them should not positively use the words, frecbj if freelij granted,
or upon graniuig the same condition if conditionally granted. These
words are a mere accessary, irrelevant to the question, in the exami-
nation of which you have alleged my quotation to be ej'roneous. This
question 1 shall now establish in its simplest form, and shall give it
some extension so as better to explain my opinion. I say tliat in all
the treaties of the United States, not only with Fi'ance, but Avith the
other European nations, when mention is made tliei-ein of being treat-
ed upon the footing of the most favoi'cd nations, this condition of re-
ciprocity is expressed, stipulating that the contracting parties shall
enjoy the same pri\ileges and advantages each in the ports of the
other. One instrument alone is drawn in very different terms; it
states, in future and forever after, the French nation shall he treated
upon the footing of the mvst favored nations, in the ports of the terri-
tory ceded l)y her. The clause stops hei-e; what are we to conclude,
that, in fact, there was nothing o/ni/frr/, nothing implied, by the ne.
gotiators, (sous entendu) reciprocity was not Auq: and, therefore, no
mention is made of it. It was not diie, because the convention of
1803 had no analogy with mere commercial treaties or regulations:
it was a sale, .a bargain; the seventh and eighth articles are reserva-
tions of rights of property made by the vendor; a mere condition of
the purchase, (Mr. Crowninshield;) a part of the price of the terri-
tory, (Mr. Randolph;) finally, because the teri-itory of Louisiana
is a2)roperty ceded 'with a particular reservation, (Mr. Rodney.) Were
it even a commercial ti-eaty, still, since the condition of reciprocil}
is not mentioned, France would have a right to nniintain that she
owes it not, and she could allege in her favor a very respectable opi-
50 [91]
iiion, in tlic following words of Mr. Madison, (Speech on the British
Treaty.) *' The fifteenth article has anotlier extraordinary feature,
which. 1 should imagine, must strike every observer. In other treat-
ies, which profess to put the parties on the footing of the most favor-
ed nations, it is stipulated that, w here new' favors are granted to a
particular nation in return for favors received, tiie party claiming
the new fiivor shall pay the price of it. This is just and proper w here
the footing of tlie most favored nation, is established at .all. But this
ai'ticle gives to Great Britain the full benefit of all privileges that
may be granted to any otiier nation, without rerpiiriiig fi'om her the
same or equivalent ])rivileges with those granted by such nation;
lunce it would happen, that if Spain. Portugal, or France, sliould
open their colonial ports to the United States, in consideration of cer-
tain pivi leges in our trade, the same privileges would result gratis
and ipso facto to Great Britain."
But we ha^ e not even to exami))e this question, that which occnpies
our attention, is quite diiferent, since it relates to a sale, a bargain;
not a favor but a bargain.
1 think. Sir, I have sufficiently proved —
1st. That there are two ujodes of being treated upon the footing of
the most favored nationg, eitlier gratuitously or conditionally.
2dly. That the ships of four nations enjoy, at this time, in the
United States, and, of course, in the ports of Louisiana, the rights
and privileges of the most favored nations.
Sdly. That France, according to the terms of the eighth article of
the Louisiana Treaty, has a right to be put in possession of the same
privileges in tiiese said ports, being part of those of the United States,
4tlily. That slic owes, and can owe, no reciprocity, not only be-
cause no such condition is stipulated in the contract, but also because
the privilege in question, is a right of property reserved, or, if you
prefer it so. is one of the e<iuivalents of the bargain.
othly. That the intention of the negotiators cannot be doubtful,
since the article which, in itself, requires no explanation, has, as a
c()?o!lary, an authentic document, which would irresistibly prove, by
the very circumstances of the case, what was meant and intended, if
the treaty itself iiad not expressed it in the most explicit terms.
I therefore hope. Sir, that, after the preceding explanation, the Pre
sident w ill be pleased to order that, in future and for ever, (unless in
ca'^f^ of subsequent arrangements to the contrary, between France and
t!ie United States,) the eighth article of the Louisiana treaty receive
its fiill and entire execution, and that, by consequence, French vesseh
be imn>e(liately made to enjoy, in the ports of the ceded territory, all
the rights, advantages, and pi'ivileges, granted to Great Britain, and
to other nations, by virtue of treaties, or in any other manner.
1 have the lionor to be. Sir,
Your most humble and obedient servant,
G. HYDE DE NEUVILLE.
Note. Is it likely tliat France ran have intended to cede, for the
mere consideration of a sum of fifteen millions of dollars, property
[91]
51
which, even before the cession, was considered as having an incalcu-
lable value, which a distinguished member of Congress valued (Deb.
25th 8ber. 1803,) at more than fifty millions, and which, in a >veU
wj'itten article of tne National Intelligencer, of the 10th of Sber, 1803,
was esteemed to be worth six hundred millions of dollars? Antl it
must not be said that France was ignorant of its value, since, before
the cession, the American public prints took continual pains to inform
her of it. I shall here cite one of these articles, signed Columbus,
(Nat. Inteil. 2d Sept. 1803.) The writer complains that several of
the public prints strive to take from the mei-it of Mr. Livingston's
memorial: he expresses a fear that they should persuade France that
it is contrary to her interests to cede Louisiana to this Republic.
He cites the following passage of a paper published in Frederick-
town, which would go to prove to the French Minister in Washing-
ton, that the First Consul would commit an act of great folly in
consenting to abandon so vast a territory.
"■ The democrats cannot think the First Consul, Bonaparte, such
a simpleton as to part with that country for any compensation we
can make him." Thus, adds Columbus, it is represented that no-
thing, in our command, is enough for those objects, (Louisiana and
New Orleans.)
Most certainly Bonaparte will never be regarded as a simpleton;
nor will it be alleged that he had such affection for the inhabitants
of tiiese United States as to have had, in the cession of Louisiana,
no other object but that of rendering them a service. Surely he
must, at the same time, have thought of his own country, and have
intended, by I'eserving certain rights and privileges in favor of
Fi-ance, to secure, at least, a sort of compensation for the great sa-
crifice to which he was subjecting her.
In whatever light this subject is viewed, the cession of Louisiana
must certainly be considered as one of the most inconsiderate and
fatal measures of the Usurper; but still it is not allowable to sup-
pose that he could, on this occasion, have entirely lost sight of the
interests of B'rance, and have consented to give up, for the mere con-
sideration of fifteen millions of dollars, an immense territory, which
will be a never-failing source of riches and prosperity to these Unit-
ed States, and which, to France, would have been worth all the co-
lonies which she now possesses, or has possessed, in the two hemi-
sphei'es.
The following opinion is such authority that I cannot better con-
clude than with citing it.
I consider the object as of the highest advantage to us: and the
gentleman from Kentucky himself, wiio has displayed, with so much
eloquence, the immense importance to this Union of the possession
of the ceded country, cannot carry his ideas further, on that subject,
than I do Sen. deb. 3. 9ber. ISOS.
52 [91]
Mu Jdams to B:iroii Hyde de jVeuvillc.
Department of State,
Washington, \ 5th June, 1821.
Sir: In replying to the two letters which I have had the lionqr of
receiving tVonj yoi!, the one bearing date tlie 29th of March last, and
the other tlie 15th ot" May, I lind it necessary to re-state, in its sim-
plest terms, the qnestion in discussion between us.
The seventh and eighth articles of the treaty by which Louisiana
was ceded to tiie United States, contain two distinct, but obviously
connected stipuSations; that of the seventh article, by which certain
special jjrivileges in the ports of the ceded territory are secured., for
the term of twelve years, to the vessels of France and S]>ain, tothe ex-
clusion of the vessels of all other nations; and ti-.at of the eighth article,
that, after tfie expiration of this special privilege, thus limited to the
ports of the ceded territory, French vessels should be forever, in the
ports of the ceded territory, on the footing o£ ihc most favored nation
in the same ports.
Upon the termsof this article, by your note of the 15th of Decem-
ber, 1817, you demanded, in the name and by order of your govern
ment, and as in fulfilment of this article, that all the advantages yield-
ed/or ample equivalent to British vessels, inallthcports of this Union,
should be yielded, without any equivalent, to French vessels, in the
ports of Louisiana.
The answer which immediately presented itself, on the first dis-
closure of this demand, was, that'the claim was, in two important
particulars, broader than tlie stipulation upon which it was raised;
first, inasmuch as, upon the mere right to eqnal favor, it required
gratuitously, that which was conceded to another for a just equiva-
lent; aiiil, secondly, inasmuch as, npon a stipulation limited in all its
parts to the ports of Louisiana, it required concessions yielded to oth-
ers w all the ports of the Union.
As the claim was thus without support from the letter of the article,
it Vv-as also aj)i)arently contradictory to itsspii-it and motive^,, as^vell
as to the whole pui-pose of the treaty, and. expressly incompatible v> i<.h
other articles of the treaty, and with the Constitution of the United
States. Such was the substance of the answer, which, on the 23d of
December, 1817; I iiad the hoimr of addressing to you in reference
to this claim.
By your note of ifith June, 1818, you replied with t!ie allegation,
that France was entitled, by tltis article, to enjoy, unconditionally,
in the ports of Louisiana, any advantage granted upon conditions to
others in ail the ports of the Union, because France was to be consi-
dered as having already given the equivalent by the cession of the
territory; and, especially, because you alleged, that, in all the other
ti'caties between France and the United States, it was expressly
said, that the two contracting parties should enjoy, reciprocally,
any favor granted to others gratnitonsly, if the concession to otiie'rs
should be gi-aluitous, or, by granting t'le same compensation if the
concessi(U! should be corH!iti')n;i.l: and, as no such distinction between
[91]
53
conditional and gratuitous favor was formally expressed in the 8tli ar-
ticle of tiie Louisiana cession treaty, you insisted witli great earnest-
ness, that this variation in the phraseology oi' tlie article from that
which had been universally used in all the j)receding treaties between
the parties, led, irresistibly, to the conclusion, that no such distinc-
tion was intended; but that the United Slates were bound forever to
give to the vessels of France in Louisiana, every advantage, which,
to the end of time, they might sell for a jyrice to the vessels of other
nations throughout the Union.
The great stress with which your note of 16th June, 1818, dwelt
upon this supposed departure from the universal language of the prior
treaties, made it necessary to observe, that its only basis was an er-
ror in point of fact; that no such concurrence in t!ie form of language
used in relation to the same p;inciple, existed in tlie prior treaties;
that the alternative reciprocity of conditional or gratuitous favor, far
from being expressed in all the treaties between the parties, had in
terms been expressed only in one, and tiiat, the first treaty ever made
between them; and particularly that a treaty concluded with the same
government, as tlie Louisiana cession, and only three years before,
contained such an article, stipulating, mutually, the advantages of
the most favored nation, without any notice wiiatsoever of distinction
hciween ^-w ovH gratnitons and favors conditional; and that this varia-
tion of the phraseology in the prior treaties, of stipulations obviously-
intending the same tiling, not only swept away the argument which
you had drawn from the supposed universal coincidence of the former
treaties, but made it recoil upon itself, and proved that gratuitous or
the conditional nature of eqnal favor was inherent in the terms them-
selves, and had only been expressly developed in the treaty of the 6th
February, 1773, from t!ie abundant caution of contracting parties,
new to each other, and above all anxious to leave no possible question
of their meaning, thereafter to arise.
Your reply of 3Uth March last, to my note of the preceding day,
insists that '-all your citations, in your preceding letters, had been
perfectly exact; that not only all the treaties between France and this
Republic, (meaning the conventions which could be judged suscepti-
ble of the clause in question.) but, also, all, or nearly all, the trea-
ties or conventions between tbe United States and European Govern-
ments, say, in terms formal, or equivalent, what you had understood,
what yoii had read, what you had been bound to say.'*
Permit me to observe, that the simple question between us was,
whether all the treaties between the United States and France, ex-
cepting only the Louisiana treaty, in stipulaiing the advantages of
the most favored nation, had e.x-pressly added that the favor should be
free, if freely granted to others, and upoti the same condition, if con-
ditionally granted. Your letter of the lOih June, 1818, in the most
unqualified terms asserted that they had; and from this position, con-
nected with the omission of the same explanatory clause, in tiie stip-
ulation of the Louisiana treaty, you had deduced, and most earne^ly
pressed an argument, tliat this supposed solitary change in the redac-
tion, necessarily imported a different construction, and entitled France
54 [91 J
to enjoy, in the poets of Louisiana, unco mill ionally, every favor grant-
ed to others, w hetlier with condition or witliout.
The demand upon a stipulation o( equal Javor. to enjoy without
equivalent, or condition, tliat which was conceded to others only for
an equivalent, or upon condition, was. in itself- so extraordinary,
that it assuredly required something stronger than inferences, and
implications, and equivalent tei-ms, for its support. The main argu-
ment upon which Mr. de Neuville's letter of l6th June, 1818, had
relied for this unexampled claim, was the omission in the Louisiana
cession treaty, of the express explanatory words alleged to be in all
the others. But the fact being otherwise, the conclusion was more
clearly tlie reverse.
It may now be added, that the only possible sense in which a stipn-
lation for equal favor can be carried into effect, is by granting it
freely, or for the equivalent, according as it is granted to others.
For if the same advantage should be granted to France, ivUhaut re-
turn, which is conceded to others only for the I'etui'n, who does not see
that France, instead of being upon equal footing with the most favor-
ed nation, would herself be upon a footing ?uo)f favored than any other?
In the latter part of your letter of the 30th March, without aban-
doning tliis demand of exclusive favor, built upon a simple engage-
ment of equal favor, you seem to admit that the diminution of duties
conceded to the vessels of several nations in the |)orts of this Union,
is not a fa'or, but a bargain; and you alleged that, even upon this
princi{)le, French vessels should be exempted from the additional ton-
nage duty of the act of 15th May, 1820, in the ports of Louisiana,
because the vessels of Russia, Spain, Portugal, and other nations with
whom the United States have n'i treaty, ate not subject to it; and, re-
peating a remark which had been made by the Charge d'Affairs of
France, in August last, you say this is not merely a favor refused,
but a burden imposed.
The vessels of nations with whom the United States have no trea-
ties, enjoy no favors in the parts of Louisiana. In the ports of Louisi-
ana, tlie vessels of all nations are on the same footing as in those of
all the other ports of the United States: there is no most favored na-
tion in the ports of Louisiana, nor in any other port of the United
States. During the twelve years, while tiie vessels of France and
Spain were admitted into the ports of Louisiana alone, upon terms
inSre favorable than into the ports of the United States, and fjom
which the vessels of other nations were excluded, they were the most
favored nations i;t the ports of Louisiana; but the favors were confin-
ed both to the vessels of those nations and to the ports of Louisiana.
They enjoyed this favor by virtue of the seventh article of the treaty;
and the object and purport of the next article was to stipulate that,
when this special and limited period of favor should exj)ire, no such
special and exclusive favor should be granted to any other nation, in
the same ports. Such is the engagement of the United States; and,
as such, it has been, and will continue to be, fulfilled. No favor
is now granted to any nation in the ports of Louisiana, und the eighth
article of the treaty has no more application to the general comuier-
L91J 55
oial laws of the United States, operating alike in every part of the
Union, than it has to the special bargains by which the vessels of
aome nations enjoy a reduction fronm the duties imposed by those gene-
ral laws, on the condition of equivalent advantages to the vessels of
the United States, in the countries to which they belong.
To the demand, therefore, that the vessels of France should pay
HO higher duties in the ports of Louisiana, than the vessels of Russia,
Spain, Denmark, or Portugal pay in alt the ports of the Union, the
answer is the same as that given to your demand in terms by your
letter of 15th December, 1817, that the vessels of France should pay
in the ports of Louisiana, no higher duties than those paid by British
vessels m all the ports of theUnion. The claim is broader than the sti-
pulation upon which it is toundcd. This stipulation is. both by its
letter and sjjirit, confined to special favors in special ports. The
claim is either to general favors, applied to special ports, or to unre-
quited favors for conditional obligations. In every such case, and
by either of the constructions for which you contend, the United
States could not assent to your claim without favoring France in tlie
ports of Louisiana more than any other nation. Instead of being
upon the same footing of the most favored nation, she wnuld herself
be the most favored nation, and enjoy advantages conceded to no
others. This is not the stipulation of the treaty.
In your letter of the 1 5th ult. you remark, that tiie exemption of
the vessels of other nations from the extraordinary tonnage duties
levied upon those of France, inasmuch as it is enjoyed in ail the
ports of the Union, U enjoyed also in the mrts of Louisiana, as a part
of the Union; and, being enjoyed there, France has, by the engage-
ment of the treaty, a right to claim the same exemption in those ports,
although she is not entitled to claim it in the other ports of the
Union. But it is this very generality, by virtue of wliich the ves-
sels of other nations enjoy the exemption, which takes away from it
all application of the eighth article of the treaty. Their exemption
is not a favor in the ports of Louisiana, even when they enjoy the be-
nefit of it in those ports: they enjoy no special favor there; and it is to
such special favor only that the stipulation could give France an
equal claim.
In your letter of the 15th iilt. it is observed that the question is
<*what must be understood by being treated upon the fooling of tiie
most favored nation;" but this is not the question, because it does not
cite the wiiole stipulation; the omission of the words "in the ports
abovementioned," changes the state of the question from its special
to a general character. The stipulation is, that "the sliips of France
shall be treated upon the footing of the most favored nations in the ports
abovementioned." The qualifying and special terms "in the ports
abovementioned," apply both to the most favored nations ami to the
treatment of the ships of France; nor can France claim any favor in
the ports of Louisiana by this stipulation, without first showing that
some other nation enjoys the same favor, as a special favor exclusive-
ly in those ports. Tiiere is no such favored nation in the ports of
Louisiana. In the omission of those words, it is believed that their
56 [91]
great importancfe to the question in discussion liad escaped attention.
Tiicir restoi-ation to tlie statement of the question will iinmediatcly
Jihovv their leading to a different conchiiion.
You observe, indeed, in another partoljour letter, that you claim this
favor in favor oi" France only in the jwrts of Lotiisiana; and you exjiress
your apprehension that I had misunderstood the j)urport of ti'.e de-
mands in your preceding letters, because I had specially uuderscoi-ed
llie terms in all llic ports of the Unioiu ^^ hen irferring to the duties
collected upon the \essels of otlicr nations. I an> well aware tlial you
liave demanded the special favor for Fraiice, only in The ports of Lou-
isiana; but you demand the s})ecial favor in the sjiecial ports, not as
the stipulation of the article would warrarst if tlie case existed, because
other nations enjoy the same special favor in the special ports, but
because, by general laws, applicable to tiie vessels of tiiose foreign
nations in all the ports of the Union, they pay in the ports of Louisiana
less for tonnage duty than the \essels of France.
You observe that it wouhl iiave been superfluous, and even idle, to
make special mentioji of the j)orts of Louisiaini in treaties granting
certain rights, favors, or privileges, in all the ])orts of the Union, be-
cause, in the ports of the Union, are included tijose of Louisiana: that
to give the whole is to give a part: as in such cases the generality
necessarily includes the speciaUy. Tliis observation, as applicable
to treaties between the United States and otiier nations, is correct:
but the inference to be drawn from the priiuiple asserted, is conclu-
sive against the claim of France in the present case. For it is not to
any such concession ol' a general nature, and which is enjoyed by
others in the ports of Louisiana, osily because they are ports of the
Union, that the stipulation of the cightii article of the Louisiana ces-
sion treaty applies. That stipulation, both in letter and spirit, is, in
all its^parts, special and not genejal. The whole transaction refers spe-
cially to Louisiana, as distinct from, and not as a part of, this Union.
The seventh article stipulates for s])ecial favors in its ports for a term
of years, to the exclusion of other nations; and the eighth provides
against the concession of similar special favors after the exj)iration of
the twelve years, to other nations, to the exclusion of tiiose of France.
It is not, tliei'efore, suflicient for France to say, that the vessels of
four other nations ]»ay onl} one dollar a ton in the ports of Louisiana,
while tiiose of Fi-ance are i-e;iuired to ])ay eigiiteen. For tliosc ves-
sels pay that dollar only, not because tliey are more/a'co?T(/ than otlier
nations in those ports, but because they pay tlie same in all the ports
of the Union; because tiiose nations have j»assed no laws excluding
the vessels of the United States from carrying to their ports the pro-
ductions of their own soil by tiie excessive aggravations of surciiarges.
There is no difference of opinion between us with regard to the
principles which ouglit to apply in tlie construction of compacts, pi'o-
mises. and treaties. Admitting the correctness of all your citations
from Vattel, I would specially invite ytnir attention to that wliicii
forbids all constructive interpretation of that whicii speaks for itself.
But I ask that, in stating the question upon the stipulation, none of
its essential words should be omitted^ that it should not be stated as
[91] 57
a general question of *^what is meant by being treated on the footing
of *.he most favored nation," but as a special question of what is
meant by being treated as the most favored nation in the ports of
Louisiana; for, when, upon a stipulation in these words you raise a
claim to be treate<i in Louisiana on the footing of the most favored na-
tions in the ports of the United States, and when, to suppoit this claim
to special favor in special places, resort is had to the argument that
the whole includes all its parts, and that the generality embraces the
specialty, what is this but interpreting that which has no need of
interpretation? To us it appears not only so, but an interpretation
as contrary to the mafltfest intention of the article, inferrible from its
connection with the article immediately preceding, as to its letter,
which is special in all its parts.
Of the numei'ous extracts which you have taken the trouble of in-
troducing in your letter of the 15th ult. fiom the spec ches of indi-
vidual members of Congress, repoited in the National Intelligencer,
as having been delivered at the debates on the passage of the laws for
carrying the Louisiana treaties into execution, I regret not to have
been able to discover one which has any bearing vAJiatever npon the
question between us, which is of the true import of the eighth article
of the tieaty: they all have reference to the seventh article — to the
exclusive privileges which made France and Spain, for a limited
term of twelve years, the most favored nations in the ports abovemen-
tioned. and the objection was strongly urged that this stipulation was
incompatible with the ])rovision in the Constitution, which forbids
any pieference to be given by any regulation of commerce or reve-*
nue to the ports of one state over those of another. To this objec-
tion, the speeches from which }ou have cited passages, were the an-
swers; and they all distinctly assume the piinciple, that the prohibi-
tive injunction of the Constitution was not incompatible wi(h the
stipulation of the treaty; because Louisiana was acquired, not as a
state, but as a territory: so that, while she continued in the territo-
rial or colonial condition, regulations of commerce different from
those prescribed for the states of the Union, might be established in
her ports, without contravening the Constitution; and there was not,
in any one of those speeches the intimation of a doubt, but that,
when Louisiana should be admitted tia a. state into the Union, the re-
gulations in her ports must be the same as in the ports of all her sis-
ter states. But the third article of the treaty stipulated that "the
inhabitants of the ceded territory should be incorporated in the Union
of the United States, and admitted as soon as possible, according to
the principles of the federal Constitution, to the enjoyment of all the
riglits, advantages, and immunities, of citizens of the United States,'*
and, as this article could be carried into execution only by their ad-
mission into the Union as a state or states, so by their admission in
that capacity, their ports became subject to that provision of the Con-
stitution which interdicts all preference to the ports of one state over
those of another. U the admission of a part of those inhabitants
did, in fact, by a short time, precede the termination of the period
R
58 [ 91 3
subject to tlie exclusive privileges of French and Spanish vessels in'
their ports, although the sentiment cited by the Baron do Neuville be
pei'ioctly correct that the Constitution ought not to be violated for a
single day, as tio question appears to have ai'isen at the time of the
admission of the state, upon the application of this article, and as
the j)rivilege of French and Spanish vessels was tiever, in fact, denied
them, during the term for which they were entitled bv the article
to claim it, whatever transient and inadvertent departure, in favor of
the inhabitants of Louisiana, from the principle of the Constitution,
may have oc( iiired is, as the Baron de iN>u\ilIe observes a question
of internal administration in this government, from which France
has received no wiong, and of wijich, therefore, she can have no mo-
tive to complain.
For tlic term of twelve years, therefoie, from the time specified in
^he treaty, France and Spain enjoyed, by virtue of the seventh article,
special /avoj-.s and privileges in the pojis of Louisiana. But it was not
certain, at the time when the treaty was cov.clnded, that the inhabi-
tants could, within twelve, or tvvmty, or even fifty years, according
to the principles of the Federal Constitution, be entitled to claim ad-
mission into the Union, as a State. After the expiration of the twelve
years, there might be an indefinite interval of time, during which the
special favors conceded to France and Spain in the seventh article,
niig!»t be transferred to other nations; and the eighth article was ob-
viously intended to aveit that contingency, by stipulating, that, after
the twelve years of special favor in the ports of Louisiana, the ves-
sels of France should be on the footing of f/ie most favored nations in
the ports aforementioned — importing, by the j)ioper meaning of the
terms, and without any ambiguous inferences of sj»ecialties from ge-
neralities, or, as the Baron de Neuville's reasoning would require, of
generalities from specialties, that no such special favor in the ports
of Louisiana should, after the twelve years, ever be conceded to any
other nation, to the exclusion of France. This is the plain and obvious
meaning of the article — the only meaning deducible from its letter —
the only meaning traceable to the intention of the parties, by its im-
mediate connection with the special and exclusive privilege of the ar-
ticle immediately preceding it, and of which it is the natural comple-
ment.
If the opinions cited by the Baron de Neuville from the speeches
of individual members of Congress, after the conclusion of the treaty,
have, as is now maintained, no bearing whatever upon the meaning
of the article now in discussion, much less can it be expected, that the
proposals in a memoir addressed by Mr. Livingston to the French
Government, nine months before the negotiation of the treaty, and in-
tended to shew that it was not the interest of France to take posses-
sion of Louisiana at all, should have any reference to a treaty found-
ed upon totally different principles.
The object of this memoir was to convince the French Government,
that it was for the interest of Fiance, instead of taking possession of
liOnisiana, to put the island of A''ew Orleans into the hands of the
Onited States, reserving to herself the right of a free port there, pay-
[91] 59
ing no lilglier duties than American vessels, and securing also to
France the navigation of the Mississippi. The memoir was written
at a time when the project of establishing a military colony at New
Orleans was contemplated by France; but even the treaty by which
Louisiana was ceded to France by Spain, had not then been con^
eluded. There is an ei-ror in the citation fiom this memoir in the
letter of the Baron de Neuville, i^page 32,) of the 15th ult , where it
is quoted as saying, that "the ;;o.ssession of Louisiana was very im-
portant to France," while in the memoir itseifthe expressions are,
that " the cession of Louisiana is very important to France."
The substitution of the term possession for that of cession, is only
woticed because it might give an erroneous idea of the whole scope of
the memoir, which was to prove that the j^ossession of Louisiana by
France would be, in a very high degree, detrimental to the interest of
France, but that she niigiit render the cession useful to her by put-
ting JVew Orleans in the possession of the United States, securing to
herself the privilege in it of a free port, together with the navigation
of the Mississippi. The memoir did not even propose that Louisiana
should be ceded to the United States, but merely that New Orleans
should be put into t\\Gir possession, to be held by them, not as an inde-
pendent and sovereign state of the Union, but on tlie same Colonial
condition as it was then held by Spain, and as it would have been
held by France, had she taken and retained possession of the Province.
Under such a project, embracing no purpose of a change in the politi-
cal condition of the inhabitants, the parties were competent to stipu-
late conditions like these without violating the Constitution of the
United States, even though witliout limitation of time. But the com-
pact actually made was ofa totally different character. By the compact
actually made, not only the Island of New Orleans, but the whole Pro-
vince of Louisiana, was cefW in full sovereignty to the United States,
for a valuable consideration in money; an equivalent far more valua-
ble to France than any be.iefit she w'ould ever have derived from the
possession of the Province for ever. The nature of that compact,
however, made it necessary to provide for the future condition of the
inhabitants of the country. Justice to them required, that, when thus
ceded in full spvereignty to the United States, they should, in due
time, be released from all the shackles of colonial bondage, and as-
sume their station as a free and equal poition of the Republic to which
they were annexed. With this wise and just condition, France
could no longer claim to stipulate for the navigation of the Missis-
sippi; she could no longer ask, without limitation, the privilege for
her ships of exclusive favors in the ceded ports. Both these condi-
tions, perfectly compatible with a treaty upon the basis which had
hcen proposed by the memoir of Mr. Livingston, in August, 1802^
became quite inadmissible in a treaty founded on the basis finally
adopted. The comi)arison therefore of the proposals in the memoir
of Mr. Livingston, cited in the letter of the Baron de Neuville, with
thp actual stipulations in the 3d, 7th. and 8th articles of the treaty, af-
fords itself a very conclusive argument against the present claim of
France. The proposals are, tliat France should merely ^[xeposscssimto
^HMik^BMSffi
60 [ 91 3
the United States of New Orleans, reserving to her own ships, without
limitation ol" time, the privileges of paying there no higher duties
than American vessels, and the navigation of the Mississippi: But
not a word was said in them of a stipulation that the vessels of France
should be upon the footing of the most favored nations in the same
poi'ts. The treaty is a cession in full and entire soveieignty of the
whole province, hut with no right reserved of navigating the Missis-
sippi, and with the right of admission for French and Spanish vessels,
upon the same footing as A<nerican vessels, limited to twelve years.
Why these great and remarkable variations from the offers of the
memorial? Wiiy, but because they necessarily flowed from the prin-
ciple of a cession in full sovereignty, and because all the rights and
privileges of the Constitution of the United States were, by a new
stipulation, secured to the inhabitants of the Province! The cause
and the effect are both palpable, from every point of departure in the
actual treaty from the proposals of the memoir. The limitation in
the article, of that which the proposal offered unbounded, is the proof
of its own necessity; and the substitute in the 8th article, of equal
favor tvith the most favored in those jmrts, after the expiration of the
limitation, instead of the perpetuity of the special privilege, is illus-
trated both in its meaning and extent by the exposition of the unlimited
offer in the memorial <>f which it supplied the plare.
Of the numerous citations, in the letter of the Baron de Neuville,
of the opitiionsof individual members of Congress, and even of anony-
mous publications in the American newspapers, one purpose appears
to be to dwell witli great earnestness on the supj)osed advantages of
the Louisiana cession to the United States. Without referring to
the estimates of nameless authorities, it is not necessary to inquire
■wlicther those of the members referred to were exaggerated or other-
wise. It is however to be observed, first, that all those estimates
were formed, under impressions that the extent of the Louisiana ces-
sion was vastly more com|)rehensive tlian the subsequent declarations
and efforts of the French Goverinnent would have made it; and se-
cond ly, that probably all those persons, to whose anticipations the
Baro.'i de Neuville appeals with so much confidence, agreed as they
were in the importance and value of Louisiana to the United States,
would also have agreed in the opinion so forcibly urged in the me-
moir of Mr. Livingston, that the possession of the same country,
Avould have been worse than useless, highly detrimental, and perni-
cious to Fiance. Of this opinion, one, at least, of the individuals,
whose sentiments the Baron de Neuville has been pleased to quote
with very flattering deference, then was and still is. He lias no
doubt that, in the possession of France, Louisiana would have con-
tinued to be, as it always had been, a burden and not a benefit: and
at the time when the cession was made, the only practical question
to France was, whether Louisiana should pass into the hands of a
friend, for ample compensation, or into the grasp of an enemy, for
no compensation at all. Louisiana then, was of great value to the
United States, and of much less tlian no value to France; and the
cession of it by France to tlic United States, was one of those trea-
[91] 61
ties which are the best and most useful of transactions between na-
tions, a compact highly advantageous to both the contracting parties.
But whether advantageous or otherwise, and whether to both or
to neither of the parties, lias no more bearing upon the present ques-
tion between the two Governments, than the speculative forecast of
individual members of Congress, or the lucubrations of newspaper
party writers. The question is upon the true meaning of the eighth
article of the treaty: that meaning is expressed in the words of the ar-
ticle: it is confirnied to demonstration, by its immediate connection
with the preceding article; it is illustrated by its variation from the
proposals in Mr. Livingston's memoir, cited by the Baron de Neu-
ville himself; nor has it been possible for the Baron, at any stage of
the discussion, to state the present claim of France in any shape,
without essentially departing both from the words and fi-oni the spi-
rit of the article upon which it would rely. When first advanced, he
expressly dem^uided, upoti a promise of equal favor in the ports of
LouUiana with the most favored in the ports of Louisiana, a perform-
ance of equal favor in Louisiana with the most favored in all the
ports of the Union. Upon a promise of equal favor, he demanded a
grant, Yf^iV/ioHf equivalent, of that which had been conceded to others
for an equivalent. In his letters of the 1 5th of May, he states the
question to be, what is understood by being treated on the footing of the
most favored n«/ioJi?— omitting the words *• in the ports abovemen-
tioned," which words are part of the stipulation in the article; but
the very insertion of which, in the statement of the question, would
have been fatal to tlie present claim.
After the fullest consideration of the question in controversy, and
the most deliberate examination of the arguments adduced by the
Earon de Neuville, in his several letters on this subject, I am ni-
structed to say, that this Government adheres to the opinion, that
the ei-hth article of the Louisiana treaty does, in no respect, author-
ize th? present claim of France, inasmuch as. since the expiration ot
the twelve years specified in the seventh article, there has been no
nation more favored than another in the ports of Louisiana.
I avail nnseif with pleasure of this occasion of renewing to you
tlie assurance of my distinguished c-^^^^-tion^^Y ADAMS.
No. 19.
Baron de Muville to the Secretary of State.
[translation.]
Washington, June 50th, 1821.
Sir: I have received the letter which you have done me the honor
to write to me, dated the 1 5th of this month-
In my turn I shall endeavor to re-establish the quest.on whirl, oc^
cupies our attention; and, by removing some errors which it bchoNCs
i^lMy^KM
62 [91 ]
mc to rectify, I shall answer the new ara:uments, which you have
oj)posc(l to those advanced by me in the coniniencement of the discus-
sion: from these I cannot depart, since nothing appears to me to
Aveaken their force.
You do me the honor to state that '' the 8th article stipulates, that
French ships shall be, forever, in the ports of the ceded territory ^ up-
on the footing of the most favored nation in the same ports"
Farthei-, you add, "the qualifying and special terms in the ports
above mentioned, apply both to the most favored nation, and to the
treatment of the most favored nations."
Finally, you say, sir, that 1 have founded on the 8th article, which
you cite, my remonstrance of the 15tti Dec. 1817, tending "to ob-
tain for French vessels in the ports of Louisiana, the advantages
granted to the English nation in all the ports of the Union."
I founded my demand upon the 8lh article, such as it is in the treaty
of cession-
i will here observe, that, in my opinion, even though the article
were expressed as you present it, my cause would still be no less
founded; but it is prudent to make no concessions to so formidable
an adversarv; I shall, therefore, attack your principal argument in
its basis, and shall endeavour to prove it is erroneous, even in the
point whereby you seek to establish that there is no question, hut of
special furors to be granted, specially and exciusivelij in the ports of
the territory ceded bv France. Allow me, sir, in the first place, to
make the following observation: my claim is entirely giounded upon
the article such as it is in the treaty, as it should be undeistood in
the common usage of language; afid. in fact, it is always by modify-
ing it, or. to speak with more propriety, by making it anew, that an
attempt is made to oppose my arguments.
This eighth article, according to your note of the 29th March,
means evidently, that, after tlie expiration of the twelve years, no such
jieculiar privileges shovldb granted, in the same ports, to the vessels of
any other nation-, to the exclusion of those of France.
But the article appears to me evidently to stipulate quite the re-
verse. It has no relation to the special right which Fratice reserved,
by the seventh aiticle, for Spain and for herself, for the space of 12
years, but to all the rights, privileges, immunities, favors, which,
after the 12 years, might be granted to other nations under any title
whatever.
France is to be treated, in future and forever, upon the footing of
the most favored nation. Th\y. is the whole question; if what you
understand to be its import had really been meant, would it not have
been more natural to have entirely suppressed the eighth article, and,
after the following clause of the seventh, (" during the space of time
abovementioned no other nation shall be entitled to the same privileges in
the ports of the ceded territory.") to iiave added. »' after the expiration
of the twelve years aforesaid, if the same privileges are granted to
any other nation it! the same ports, they shall become common to
France also."
[91] 63
But even these expressions, I perceive it, sir, would not come per-
fectly up to your idea, nor effectually over-rule my opinion.
Why then wafi not the article worded in the I'oUowing terms: they
would naturally have occurred to the negotiators if they had thought
at that time of what you now conjecture.
" In future, and forever, France shall enjoy, gratuitously, in the
ports of the territory ceded hy her, all the rights or privileges which
may be granted ^Tatid^ows^j/, and specially, in the said ports, to any
other nation." The clause would then have been clear and precise,
and I should, in such case, have perfectly conceived what you do me
honor to state in your note of the 23d December, I8l7: *^ If British
vessels enjoyed, in the ports of Louisiana, any gratuitotis favor, un-
doubtedly French vessels would, by the terms of the article, beentitled
to the same."' , r- • i
Bat, to be candid, how can it he asserted now that France is to en-
joy only such favors as may be granted gratuitously to other nations,
when we read in the 8th article, '• In fjiture, and forever, after the ex-
piration of the twelve years the sliips of France shall be treated upon
the footing of the most favored nations in the ports abovementioned?"
I, therefore, had reason to advance that it was essentially necessary
first to define correctly what must be understood by the terms most
favored nations. It makes but litttle difference whether we say the
'most favored nation in the ports of Louisiana, or onlij the most favored
nation, since wc have only to determine this first point of the ditfi-
culty.
Why should France enjoy in the said ports only such favors as
should be conceded gratuitously, and not such as might be granted
conditionally? The 8 th article says no such thing; why, theretore— by
what law. by what rule, can it be p<>sitively established, that, '* it
British vessels enjoyed in the ports of Louisiana any gratuitous fa-
vor, undoubtedly French vessels would, by the terms of t!»e article,
be entitled to the same." Is there then but one mode of becoming in
any country whatever, the most favored nation? Or, it the conven-
tional law of nations admits, particularly in the United States, that
this treatment may be obtained, not only gratuitously but conditional-
br if the Federal Government has been ever careful to have this clause
inserted in its different treaties; if I find it in the conventions of
1778, 1783. 1785; if I find it again in the treaty with Prussia, nego-
tiated by Mr. Adams himself, in 1799, how can the Secretary of
State say now. that, *' if British vessels enjoyed in the ports of Louis-
iana an]j gratuitous favor, undoubtedly French vessels would, by
the terms of the treaty, be entitled to the same?"
France, I repeat it, has a right to enjoy, in the ports of Louisiana,
the treatment of the most favored nation, whether this nation be tavor-
ed gratuitously or conditionally; she has a right to enjoy it, inasmuch
as the 8th article stipulates expressly, that, ^^ in future, and Jorever,
French ships shall he treated upon the footing of the most favored nation
in the ports of the tern lory ceded by France.' To pretend that she
is to obtain this treatment in case only that it shall he conceded
64 [91]
gratuitouslif to another nation, is subjecting the Stli article to aii
arbitrary interpretation; it is going in the lace ol' a doctrine gene-
rally received; it is inter[)reting what retjuires no interpietation;
it amounts, in fine, to the creation of a new conventional law of na-
tiosis peculiar to the ports of Louisiana.
I now pass, sir. to the entii-ely new interpretation wbicb you give
in your letter of the 15th of tliis month, to this same article. You
make it express, that, after the expir.ation of this special privilege,
that, if the seventh article tiius limited to tbe ports of tlie ceded
territory, Frencii vessels should be foi-ever, in ike ports of the ceded
territory, on the footing of the most favored nation in the same ports.
If the question were only to new mould the article, nothing could
be more easy, as I have already made it appear, than to give it the
sense which is now attempted to be ascribed to it; but we must ad-
here to its letter if we mean ever to come to an understanding.
It is certain that French vessels are to be treated upon tfie foot-
ing of the most favored nation; but where are they to be so treated? I
answ er, in the ports of the territory ceded by Fi-ancc: and this ipso
facto, gratis, whatever be the title under whicii the most favored na-
tions may enjoy the same treatment, has it been meant by the article
to say the nation most favored in the said ports, exclusively in the said
said ports? Finally, ai-e we to read, as you now, for the first time,
propose, the most favored nation in the ports of the ceded territory?
Doubtless, no; t!ic last member of the period has no refei*ence to the
most favored nation; it can have no relation except to the treatment of
French vessels: ^^ Infutnre, and forever, French vessels shall be treated
upon the footing of the most favored nation.'^ Here the sense is complete,
with regard to the words most favored nation. All instruments found
in public law clearly show what is meant by the most favored na-
tion. There can, therefore, be no nusconception in this respect.
But this is not the case with the otiier men)ber of the sentence; it is
not sufficient to stipulate, that French vessels shall, in future and for-
ever, be treated upon the footing of the most favored nation; it is neces-
sary, moreover, to specify where they shall be so treated; for, other-
wise, the sense Avould be incomplete, and the aiticle would have no
meaning at all.
I shall avoid all grammatical discussion; but, if the sense of the ar-
ticle did not evidently bear me out, and if I were under tlic necessity of
showing by its construction, that it cannot have the meaning which
you attribute to it; I could cite in favor of my assertion, several phra-
ses of your last note, and would prove by tiieir correctness, that the
8th article, such as it has been drawn, and worded in the treaty, can-
not admit the argument made by you, in the concluding words of the
sentence.
It concerns not France to examine if any nation enjoys in the ports
of the territory ceded by her, any right or privilege, as a special fa-
vor exclusively in those ports; she has only to inquire whether any
nation is there treated upon the footing of the most favored nation; or,
in other words, if the treatment she receives, is more favorable than
[91]
65
that of French vessels, in the said ports. It is matter of small im-
portance to lier, to know whether siich nation, being the most favor-
ed in Louisiana, is at the same time tlie most favored in Baltimore,
New York, or Boston, or to know by what title such favor is grant-
ed in the ports of Louisiana. The fact ah)ne, when ascertained, is
of itself sufficient ground for claiming as her due, the fulfilment of
the 8tii article of the Louisiana treaty, which stipulates /Aa^ infulurc.
and forever, after the ecqnratiim of the 12 ifears, French vessels shall
be treated upon the footing of the most favored nations, in the ports above-
mentioned.
Which, without gloss or comment, expressly means, ** In future and
forever, after the exi>iration of the 12 years aforesaid, French vessels
shall be treated in the ports abovementione!!, (that is, in the ports of
Louisiana territory ceded by France,) upon the footing of the most fa-
vored nations."
It would be needless to add any thing to this exjdanation, since the
sense is complete. And it would be vain to seek even iJi a forced word-
ing (redaction) of the ai'ticle, t'ac special favor exclusively in those
ports. The article neither expresses nor could express any such tiling.
It does not express it, as has been just proved. It could not express it.
This, sir, you would constantly prove, by objecting that, " according
to the Constitution, no preference shall be given by any regulations
of commerce or revenue, to the ports of one state, over those of anoth-
er." From this it clearly follows, in your own opinion, sir, that no
nation can receive a special favor in a special port, and exclusively in
that port. What is not allowable at this time, could not surely be done
in 1803; and how can it be conceived, that the only end of the Ameri-
can negotiators was to grant to France, nothing but an illusive advan-
tage, a privilege which she could never be put into possession o/" consis-
tently witii the Constitution ? How cou Id the Fi-ench negotiators have
claimed or accepted such a favor? How is itpossible to reconcile the
idea of a claim, which would amount to a. more mockei^, with expres-
sions so solemn as these, in future and forever? It cannot, I repeat it,
be presumed, that discreet and sensible men, making a treaty and a
solemn conveyance, have intended to make a mere nullity. Let us ex-
amine what is likely to have taken place, what certainly did occur du-
ring the negotiation, and \ e shall find that it is not at all necessary to
torture the expressions of the article, in order to establish its true and
positive meaning.
France was about to cede a vast territory in order to render an
important service to a friendly nation; that territory was her pro-
perty; she, therefore, had a right to settle the clauses and conditions
of the contract. This was not the case of a favor granted, nor of a
commercial regulation to be made by the United States; but, on the
contrary, of a'favor to be received, of a very important acrpiisiti an to
be made by them. This bargain could not but be very advantageous
in every respect to the United States— France was not to gain as
much by it; this she knew, but although she willingly consented to
9
&iittaiiiMii».
66 [91]
make so j^rcat a sacrifice, was she entirely fo neglect her own inter-
ests? The French Government knew at the same time, that dilticul-
ties had arisen already between the two countries, and the convention
of 1800. testified tliat tlie j)arties had not been able to come to an un-
derstanding on the treaties of 177 8^ the provisional convention of
1800, was to lemain in force only five yeais moi-e; it might possibly
be renewed; the parties might come to an understanding on the vari-
ous points in dispute; but, at the same time, it was also possible that
other discussions should [)roduce injurious measures, impolitic steps,
and lead to a state of things equally injurious to both nations.
Experience seems to have proved how prudent it was in them, to
foresee, and how wise to act in prevention. Such being the state of
things, how was it proper foi- France to act? I will answer, just as
she did act. and this course was too obvious not to have been j)ursued.
She was about to cede an immense colony, the inhabitants of which
spoke the French language, and were likely not to lose French tastes
or to abandon French fashions: it particularly behoved her to secure
forever^ such a market for her productions* — Mr. Livingston told her
so, policy and common sense led her to do so. It was, therefore, that
the French Government, wliilw ceding Louisiana, in order to give the
United States a remarkable j)roof of friendship, and to do away every
cause of rivalship between the two nations, reserved, in the ports of
the territory ceded, a right or privilege, the full and entire enjoyment
of which, should be independent of all general arrangements of com-
merce or navigation, existing at that time, or which might subse-
quently be made by the two nations: that the privilege should secure
to French merchants, the advantage of being/oreTuei' treated in Loui-
siana, upon the footing of the most favored nation, whatever might be
the footing upon which they should be received in the other ports of
the United States; therefore, did France demand that, after the expi-
ration of the twelve years, during which, both Spain and herself were
to eujoy an exjual privilege, she, B'rance, should have alone, in future,
ami for ever, a right to be treated, in the ports of Louisiana, upon the
footing of the most favored nation: not of the nation most favored ex-
clusively in the said ports, (which, most assuredly the 8th article does
not say,) but of the most favored nation by whatever title; which the
article may be said to stipulate expressly, tiince no condition is an-
nexed to tlic favor. It cannot, at all events, be asserted that this is
a forced interpretation, since it agrees so perfectly with the text and
lettei'of the article, which is, moreover, abundantly explained by an-
tecedent facts, by the circumstances of the case, and by subsequent
events. It appeared to me, sir, that, in my letter of the 15tii of May,
I had clearly replaced ujmn its proper footing, the question relating
to a supposed error in that of the l6th of June, 1818. I thought it
"was proved that, whether there were or were not such an error in my
letter, there would still remain the same force in the argument, which,
alone, it was material to attack; but since you have thought it proper,
• Sec Ihe end of Mr. Livingston's memohal
[91] 67
sir, again to return to this citation, whicli, I repeat it, even if erro-
neous would not alter my argument in the least, let us again examine
with minute attention, if there really be any mistake on my part.
Theie are eiglit treaties, compacts, or conventions, between France
and the United States; four of these are of such a nature as not to ad-
mit the clause in question: the four others being such as to allow itjj
insertion, are: The I'reaty of Amity and Commerce of September,
1778. The Consular Convention of 9th November. ITS. The Com-
mercial Convention of , 1800; and last, the Louisiana Treaty
of , 1803. In the treaty of 1778, stipulating that both countries
shall enjoy, each in the ports of the other, the treatment of the most
favored nation, the very same expression which I have used will be
found in the articles 2d, Sd and 4th. The convention of 9th of No-
vember, refers to the :2d, 3d, and 4th ai'ticies of the said preceding
treaty. Two. therefore, out of these four treaties, state precisely
what I have attributed to them, viz: that each nation shall enjoy, in
the ports of theotlier, tlie treatment of the most favored nation, /ree-
hjf if freely granted, or conditionally, if the concession be comlitional.
The third treaty, (of 1800.) stipulates expressly that the two na-
tions shall reciprocally enjoy the treatment oi the most favored na-
tion, both as regards the rights and privileges of Consular agents,
(art. 10th ) and with respect to nil privileges, immunities, liberties,
and exemptions in trade, navigation, and commerce, and as to duties
or imposts, of what nature soever they may be, or by what name so-
ever called. An attentive examination of tliese two articles will sure-
ly suffice to produce an absolute conviction, that, when the condition
of reciprocity is thus expressed, nations are reciprocally to enjoy the
treatment of the most favored nations, upon the condition generally
understood. Thus, the convention of IBOO does stSiXe, in eqidvuLent
terms, what is stipulated expressly in the treaties of 1778. I, there-
fore, concur in your opinion, sir, on one point. In truth, 'ivho can
dmibt that this was implied in the article? but I cannot go on to say
with you, though not expressed, since it does not appear to me possible
to express any thing more clearly in equivalent terms. Last remains
the Louisiana treaty, and it is precisely because the treatment of the
most favored nation is secured to France, without reriprocify mi her
part, that a discussion has arisen on these points. Where, then, have
I committed any error? Perhaps it would have been more rigorously
exact to have said the treaties, instead of fl/i the treaties, since the re-
ference was but to four treaties. Biit I would ask, sir, if that single
word, all, WHS of such moment as to fix so repeatedly your attention?
Sir, I repeat it, all the treaties between France and the United States,
(those, it is understood, which could admit of such a clause,) all the
treaties between the United States and European nations, wherein
the treatment of the most favored nation is mentioned, stipulate that
it shall be reciprocal: and on examining the other compacts between
nations, I find the same stipulation of reciprocal advantages in every
case, except where, as in the Louisiana treaty, there is some charge
imposed by one party on the other, or a privilege reserved.
iTTfUir -' a-Miil
68 [91]
"Whence is it that one treaty, that of 1803, should alone mention,
'Without reciprocitiif the treatment of the most favored nation? The
reason becomes obvious, if we consider that it is the only treaty of
the United States, sid generis, \vh ch does not relate to commercial
arrangements: a commercial convention grounded on expected con-
tingencies, and stipulating U)utua! sejvices and advantages, which do
not require any advances, lias no sort of analogy with a contract of
sale, a mere bargain. In this last case the vendor conveys his proper-
ty to the vendee, who binds himself for the stipulated consideration,
consisting in the other clauses, charges, and conditions, of the bar-
gain, as well as in the funds to be paid at hand, or by instalments;
the right of the vendor, his only right, as you observed, sir, in 1805,
is to require that the conditions stijmlated be jmnctuatly and faithJ'nUy
performed. This is all France desires; she has fnjoyed, or might
have enjoyed, during the space of twelve years, the right secured to
her by the 7th article, and she now demands the fulfilment of the 8th
article; which, as well as the 7 th, is **a part of the price of the ter-
ritory, a mere condition of the purchase." In your letter of the 15th
you say, *♦ of thenumerousextracts which you have taken thetrouble of
introducing in your letter of the 15th ult., from the speeches of indi-
vidual members of Congress, rejjortcd in the Mitional Inielligcnccr^
as having been delivered at the debates on the passage of the laws for
carrying the Louisiana treaties into execution, I regret not to have
been able to discover oiie which has any bearing whatever upon the
question between us, which is of the true import of the 8th article of
the treaty; they all have reference to the 7th.'*
Suffiei* me, sir, to obsei've, that in thus taking the trouble to cite
tliese very respectable opinions, my principal object was to answer
the following passage of your letter of the 15th of March: '< From the
obvious purport of the 7th and 8tli articles, it is apparent, that neither
of them was considered in any lespect as forming a part of the equiva-
lent for the cession of Louisiana;" I was, therefore, right, in not se-
parating them, when my object was to prove that neither of them was
considered in any respect as forming a ])art of the equivalents for the
cession of Louisiana; and although the question of constitutionality
cannot, in any case, concern France, it was proper that I should es-
tablisli its having been completely settled in 1803; and that I was not
alone of o])inion that Louisiana was property ceded, *< with particular
reserration, with a condition which the party ceding had a right to re-
quire, aiid to which the United States had a right to assent" It makes
but little diffeience what particular article ot* the treaty gave rise to
tiie s])eeclics cited, iCthey had a full bearing on the whole convention,
and if cAcry argument adduced on t]je7th article is, a fortiori, appli-
cable to tlie 8th. Tiic 7th and 8th articles are both a part of the
equivalents for the cession, or, rather, they are reservations of rights
of property. — France owed no reciprocity, and therefore it is that no
reciprocity was stipulated on her part; it was no error or omission of
the negotiatoj's.
[91]
69
I read, sir, in your letter of the 15tli, '' in the latter part of your
letter of the 30th of March, without abandoning this denvand of
exclusive favor, you seem to admit that the diminution of duties con-
ceded to the vessels of several nations," in the ports of this Union, is
not a favor but a bargain — Now, sir, I admit notliing of tbe kind iu
my letter of the 30th — far from seemitig to admit my expression, in
the very phrase cited by you, sir, are Te ne saurois admettref I cannot
admit.
As to the question ti'eatcd of in that letter, I shall confine myself to
ex])ressing again my surprise, that Fiance should be denied, in the
ports of the territory ceded by her, even those a«lvantages which are
granted to nations having no treaty or convention with the United
States. Those nations, you say, sir, have passed no laws exchiding the
vesseh of the United States from carrying to their ports the productions
of their own soil, by the excessive aggravation of siircharges. To tbis
1 shall answer, that France hffs done no such thing; and that her dis-
criminating duties are far from having ^operated like magic in favor
of the ship-owners of France, and have not even secured to her navi-
gation a due share in the carrying trade. And, after all, where is it
stip'ilated that France shall be treated in Louisiana upon the footing
of the most favored nation, (as by tlie 8th ai-ticle) only in case she
shall make no regulations on navigation injurious to the interest of
the United States, or wliicli might be supposed, contrary thereto? Is
not every nation free to regulate her own commerce and navigation
as she sees fit? If her laws amount to prohibitions, if they appear
unjust, if tbey are deemed injurious, it is, no doubt, allowable to adopt
similar countervailing measuirs; but sucli measures on her part can-
not make it justifiable to lose sight of the respect due to a sacred right
of property, which is absolute in its nature, and is independent of all
i-egulations of commerce and navigation. — Observe, moreover, sir,
tliat French vessels arc not treated in the ports of Louisiana either
upon the footing of the most favored nations, nor upon that of nations
having no treaty or convention with the United States,} nor even upon
the footing of those in whose ports the vessels of the llnited States are
tmtordinuriUj permitted to go and trade. This requires no comment.
You have stated, sir, that all the speeches cited by me tend to prove
that there was no inconsistency between the federal constitution and
certain conditions of the treaty of cession, *• because Louisiana was
acquired, not as a state, but as a territory; so that while she continued
in the territorial or colonial condition, regulations of commerce differ-
ent from those prescribed for tlie states of the Union, might be es-
tablished in their ports, without contravening tlie constitution."— I
have already answered this argument by stating the fact, that the
7th article, which, in your opinion, was judged to be compatible with
♦These extra charges were siifRcient to drive from our ports the greatest propor-
tion of the foreign tonnage. All foreign nations were affected by the system we had
adopted. It seemed to "operate like magic in favor of the ship-owners of the Uuited
States. — (Dr. Seybert, on the American discriminating duties.)
t American tonnage law, article 1st.
70 [91]
the Constitution, so long only as Louisiana should continue to be a
colony, receivetl its full execution dunng three years njler Louisiana
had become a state.
To this you reply, that in this there was, in truth, a violation of the
Constitution, '*from which France has received no wrong, and of
which she can have no motive to complain." But if we have adopted
in Europe, as a monarchical principle, thatf//e King can do no wrong,
we also expressly admit, with Mr. Griswold, that the Legislature
cannot violate the Constitution, even for a day. I look upon it as cer-
tain and indubitahle, that Congress had not the desire, as it had not
the power, to violate, intentionally , the Constitution, for a day, nor
even for an hour. Besides, how can it be considered as a transient,
inadvertent departure from the Constitution, that the unconstitutional
execution of the 7th article should have place, not for a day, but for
tliree years, while all the discussion wi)ich the speeches refeired to
had tended only to establish, that, in such case, there would, in fact,
be a violation of the Constitution? You add, sir, '< there was not, in
any one of those speeches, the intimation of a doubt but that, w lien
Louisiana should be admitted as a stale into the Union, the regulations
in her ports must be the same as in the ports of all her sister states;'*
and, in another part of your letter, you "' again rej^eat, that, by the
admission of Louisiana into the Union, her ports became subject to
that provision of the Constitution which interdicts all preference to
the ports of one state over those of another."
I think I have shewn, that this article of the constitution is not, in
any case, applicable to the express stipulations of a sale and convey-
ance of property; and that it did not belong to France to examine that
question. I could, perhaps, prove, also, that the two last assertions
are not, in every point, rigorously correct. Yo^i will and, sir, that, in
those very speeches, it has been questioned whether all the ports of the
United States were, at tjjat time, subject to the same commercial re-
gulations. '* By turning to our statute books, says Mr. Randolph, it
will be perceived that, at present, there are some ports entitled to ben-
efits which other ports do not enjoy." He shews, in another place,
referring to a treaty between the United States and Great Britain,
that several parts of the state of New York have a system of custom
and duties peculiar to themselves; and « in this he says, gentlemen
could not avail themselves of the distinction taken between a territory
and state, even if they were so disposed, since the ports in question
were ports of a State.^
We see, besides, that Mr. Rodney's principal argument is ground-
ed not on the article of the constitution mentioned by jou, but on
that which gives to Congress the power to provide for the general
welfare.
• Mr. Randolph said that he did not mean to affirm that this exemption made by
the treaty of London was constitutional; to solve that question was not his object;
he would, however, observe, that France had a view in signing the treaty to as--er-
tain whether all its articles were constitutional or not; since here, as well as else-
where, the most enhghtened men frequently disagree on certain points of legisla»
lion.
[91] 71
Let lis conclude from these various instances that the question of
constitutionality is foreign to that whicli we now discuss; that it is
of little moment to know whether a state may or may not modify its
administration of customs and duties; that even this point was dis-
cussed in 1805; that, whether questioned or not, the rigiitof France
remains still the same, beoause it is a right of property, not afavor^
but a hargain; and, finally, that the least doubtful point in all human
trasactions, is the necessity of fulfilling pmidualltj and JaithfulUj all
their conditions and stipulations.
As to the memoir of Mr. Livingston, its object, in your opinion,
sir, was to convince the Frencii Government that it was its interest,
instead of taking possession of Louisiana, to put New Orleans into
the hands of the United States. In the first place, I shall ask what
uould then iiave become of the territory, and whether, in such case,
Mr. Livingston's object, which was to prevent every collision, to
remove every motive of rivalship between the two nations, would
have been fully accomplished; but every discussion on that subject
would, I think, be quite useless, the perusal of the memoir being
sufficient alone to remove every doubt. Its very basis is this question:
'♦Is it the interest of France to take possession of Louisiana?"
It runs from beginning to end on that subject, and no other. If, in
one paragraph it proposes to put the United States in possession of
New Orleans, it is palpable, fi'om that very paragrapii, and from
the following, that the memoir refers not to New Orleans alone, but
to the whole of Louisiana. Let us cite some passages. " '* Who, then,
will be willing to cultivate Louisiana with slaves:" " Louisiana is sur-
rounded by an immense wilderness." <'\Vhat advantage can France
derive from settling that Colony?^' " The productions of Louisiana
being the same with those of the Antiles. &c. ^c. it grows to evidence
that, with respect to commerce, the settling (colonization) of JiOuis-
iana would be prejudicial to France, since it would deprive her other
colonies of capitals which might be more usefully employed there.'*
"The possession of Louisiana is, however, very important to
France, if she applies it to the only use which sound policy would
seem to approve. I speak of Louisiana only, and in this I do
not mean to comprehend the Floridas, because I think they are no
part of the cession; as she can acquire by this cession the right to
carry on the Mississippi a free trade," kc. &c.
Further, after having taken pains to explain all the advantages
which France is to derive from the cession of Louisiana to the United
States, Mr. Livingston adds: "All this can take place only by tlie
cession of Ne^^' Orleans to the United States, w ith the reserve of liie
right of entry at all times, free from all other duties than those paid
by American vessels, together with the right of navigation on the
Mississippi."
It becomes evident, that he means the cession of the w hole of Louis-
iana, since he advises France to secure to herself the navigation on
the Mississippi: for, how could this stipulation have been necessary,
if she were to have retained possession of the western shore? In which
ii^fBi >M«^ Mjf"7^ii
TZ [ 91 ]
cases does Mr. Livingston mention NeM^ OiiciDis only r It is when he
speaks of a free port, and of securing a free access to French vessels
and merchandise. And, in these particulars, it is plain that he could
not express himself otherwise, JNew Oilcans heing, at that time, the
only port of Louisiana.
But, what is the ohject of all the arguments of th(^ Minister of tlie
IJnited States? To dissuade France from taking possession o£ LouU
siana; to prove, that, under her government, Louisiana never would,
nor ever could flourish: tliut, not only in relation to commerce, but
also with respect to policy, tlie settling of Li)uisiana could not be
profitable to her; that she would find greater advantages in securing
to herself the solid friendship of the United States, than in the acqui-
sition of a teri'itory whicli would become a source of rivalshtp; that
she ought not to change a natural ally from a wai-m friend, into
a suspicions and jealous neighbor, kc. kc. >yhat is Mr. Livingston's
conclusion? That, by ado])ting his opinion, France would easily be
able to introduce into the ^ye;•tern Cousitry the products of her manu-
factures, which the United States would have no interest to prevent,
every cause oi' rivalship between the two nations being thus removed.
What more, I ask, can be wanting, to prove that the memoir relates
not to the cession of New Orleans alone, but to that of the whole
territory of Louisi an a ?
You observe, that Mr. Livingston proposes to France to cede New
Orleans to the United States, to be taken possession of by them, not
as an independent and sovereign state, but merely on the same colo-
nial condition it was held in by S])ain, and as it would have been held
hy France, had she taken and retained possession of the province.
To this I can make no other answer, than that I have not been able,
even on the closest examination, to discover any such thing expressed
in the memoir. The word merely is not to be seen there, any more
than the, word exdusivelij in the eighth article of the treaty. There
is nothing in the memorial that coukl suggest the idea of Louisiana
continuing under the colonial condition, w hen belonging to the United
States.
You do me honor to state, sir, that Mr. Livingston's memoir was
presented to the French (Jovernment in August, 1802; and yet I read,
in another part of your letter, that it was written at a time when even
the treaty, ceding Louisiana to France, was not eoucluded. In this
there is error of date, since the treaty of St. Ildephonso, by which
Spain ceded the colony, or province of Louisiana, to France, was
signed on the 1st of October, 1800, as is stated in the convention of
1803, and in all the other documents of that period, which give it a
date more than twenty months' anterior to Mr. Livingston's memoir.
The error which you think you have found in the citation of ])age
32 of my letter of the 15th May, does not exist. I have now the
honor to send you a copy of the original memoir, addressed in Mr.
Livingston's own hand writing to the French Government; yon will
there find the word possession, and not cession, of Louisiana, in the
paragraph alluded to.
C91]
73
In my letter of the \5i\\ of May, I called io mind what, even at the
time of the cession, was the acknowledged value (»f the tciTitory ceded
by France, and cited not only the opinions of various writers, but also
those of several distinguished members of Congress. To this a ou reply,
that " all those estimates were formed under impressions that the ex-
tent of the Louisiana cession was vastly more comprehensive than the
subsequent declarations and efforts of the French Government would
have made it."
I do not know to what subsequent declaration you allude.
In the first article of the treaty, it is expressly stated that tbe French
Government cedes Louisiana, *' in order to give the United States a re-
markable proof of friendship.'" In all these subsequent declarations, I
find expressions of the same good will and friendly dispositiovis com-
bined with a sense of justice from which even friendship sliould never
depart. As to the efforts of the French Government, as you do not
specify them, nor indicate of what description they were, I wish to
persuade myself, Sir, that you tliereby allude to those efforts, w^hich,
©n more than one important occasion, within the last forty-tliree
years, Franceh as taken a pleasure in making to promote the|prosperity
of t!ic United States.
What were the real motives wliich induced the French government
not to retain Louisiana? I sec no other, nor can discover any, but
those expressed in the treaty, and therefore I shall not discuss
this point. I can, however, assert, that France lias, at all times.
proved that she could do much for her friends, and had little fear of
her enemies. For this reason, H\\e opinion so forcibly nrged in the
memoir of Mr. Livingston, has made hut little impression on my
mind, and, if such a question were not irrelevant to the present sub-
ject of discussion, I believe that I could easily shew that France could
have retained her territoi-y of Louisiana, as well in war as in peace.
I «annot conclude better than by citing, in support o? my cause,
the words of a celebrated statesman, whose opinions I have already
had occasion to quote, and must be received as authority every where^
and on every occasion.
Opinion of Mr. Madison in 1794,
" The fifteenth article, Mr. Chairman, has another extraordinary
feature, which I sbould imagine must strike every obseiver. In the
treaties which profess to put us on the footing of the most favored
nation, it is stipulated that, where new favors are granted to a parti-
cular nation, in retui-n for favors received, the paity claiming the new
favor shall pay the price of it- This is just and prtiper uliere tbc
footing of the most favored nation is established at all. But this ar-
ticle gives to Great Britain the full benefit of all privileges that may
Lc granted to any other nation, without requiring from her the same
equivalent privileges with thosegranted by such nation. Hence,it would
happen, that if Spain, Portugal, or France, should open their colo-
nial ports to the United States, i^ consideration of «f rtain privileges,
in our trade, the same privileges would vasxilt gratis and ipso facto Xo
Great Britain. ''^
•Mr. Madison's speech, Bntislj Treaty, 15th April, 1792,
10
itifrftf iMiai'^flf
74 ♦ [91]
The present claim of France is the same, or rather it is better,
since it e^rows not out of a Commercial Convention, but out of a con-
tract of sale, and since France has, in fact, already paid for her pri-
vilej^e, while England, in the instance cited, would have given no
consideration; still, however, Mr. Madison says that England must,
by the terms of the article, ohXa'm gratis and ?>so /ado every right
or privilege granted to any other nation, whether gratuitously or for
an equivalent. From all which I conclude, sir, that France has a
right to enjoy gratis and ipso facto the privilege reserved to her by the
8th article of the Louisiana treaty.
When so able an advocate as Mr. Madison has taken up my de-
fence, I need say no more.
I have honor to be, &c. &c.
G. HYDE DE NEUVILLE.
No. 20.
Baro7i de JS'eu-ville to the Secretary of StatCf
Washington, October 15, 1821.
[translation.]
Sir: I have received fresb instructions from my Govennnent re-
quiring me to insist upon the execution of the 8th article of the Lou-
isiana treaty, or to demand at least that, in the nsean time, our ship-
ping be made to enjoy, in the ports of the Territory ceded by France,
all the privileges and advantages which arc granted in the same
ports to such nations as have no treaty or convention with the United
States.
On this subject I must again refer to my letter of the 50th of March
last. Considering, howev»i% that, at the date of these instructions,
my Government was not informed of the present state of the negotia-
tion, and being solicitous to make all possible exertion for the removal
of evci-y difficulty to the negotiation, I have the honor again to pro-
pose (in case you should persist in your opinion on the Louisiana
question, as f adhere to mine.) that we enter into the agreement sug-
gested in my letter of June 30th, and 3d of August.
Accept. &;c. kc, kc
G. HYDE DE NEUVILLE,
No. 21.
Extract of a letter C^o. 2SS J from Mr. Gallatin to Mr. Mams, dated
24th September, 1822.
"I had yesterday a conference with Mr. de Villele on the subject
of our claims. He expressed his wish that a general arrangement
[911
75
mieht take place, embracin.s: all the subjects of a..scnssiou between
the two countries; stated th.,se to be the reclaniations of the Lnite.l
States for snoliations on their trade; those of France on account of
Beaumarchais' claim, and of the vessels captured on the coas ot Al-
rica, and the question a.ising under the Louismna treaty; and askea
whether I ^vas prepared to negotiate upon all Jf'^f l^'""^,^;, . Vf""
swered that I was ready to discuss them all, but that I ™'^'.f "^Vl^^^^^
unitine: the Louisiana question to that of claims for in^em,. y, as tiny
were Essentially distinct, and as I thou.s;ht that, after all ha had
passed! we had 'a right to expect that - ^-'ther obstacU. s W e
thrown in the discussion of oar clanns by conncct.n.? »* ;^'<?'/'^,^J;^^^'^
foreign to them. Mr. de Villele appeared to acquiesce m that obsei-
vatioii."
No. 22.
■Extract of a letter, JV'b. 236, from Mr. Gallatin to Mr. Adams, dated
ISth November, 1822.
« I received, on tlie 8tb instant, a letter of Mr. «e ViHele of the
6th, a copy of \vhich is enclosed, together with that ot my ans^^e^
''ixhere'; no doubt that the attempt to blend the discussio.^, ..spect •
ine: the claims, with that concerning the construction ot the 8 a.-
Se of the Lo'uisiana treaty, is intended to pos pone if iu>t to de eat
the first obiect. It must have been presumed that 1 could not na\G
p Ix : onS Louisiana question: and that, m «- I - ; ^e^^™ f.
!,nt be such as to authorize me to acquiesce in the consts uction con
iedfofu; France. From the ^"<''- f >''« 'f '^^^ ^rl^t ^
nfhPT- rirrunistances, I am inclined to tliink that Lro\einment amu
that that paper is considered as the organ ot Mr. dc > illele s
""'" U will now remain for the President to decide whether it is pro-
pet^:;!i risers on the -^ject of tlie Ws.na ^e^ and^
1 that case, vvhc^lu^r it ^ f.r ^le u^ere^ of^^^ ^^^t^?le„t
purchase the annulation of ^^^ ^th aitcle. iliat ^^^_
means to make their c aim ""^^^^ / ; ^" Yet as n av be mistaken,
"T'^ "' X^^ M;:;;;r;! ': " ;me tt^Len circumstances,
I beg leave again to refer to the several lettcis m v,hnM
plied for instructions on that subje<;t.
av
76
[ 91 ]
No. £2. «.
Mr. ViUelc to Jlr. Gallatin.
[tkanslatiojv.]
Faris, J\n\ 6, 182a.
Sir: The ronvrntion concluded at Wosl.ingtoii, o), the 24th of June
ast, lias ,rnu.^od the obstacles ^vhich inoLnet>tai:ily fettered the rela!
tmns ot o.njm-rcc between France and the United *States. Althon4
:::;;"r''''"'V' *•"'-' ^''/'J"''-'^'''^'' '- P'-*^''"^^-^ ^'-^ expectation of a
neV tin Tr 'r ' •' ^'"^^ l""'"' ''•"■''^^'^'' '^ ''^ '"tended to leave pro-
pu nne lor disossing and establishing this treaty npon bases the
nost confonnab e to the interests of the two states. ' The communica
int,. liis Majesty has seen, xvith satisfaction, this happy effect of the
arrar^ement concluded in his name and in the nan.'^oVtt United
fiiJv^'I'tilSYf'' clifficlties still remain to he cleared, they will be ea-
M > sett lo.l between two powers that are sincerely desirous of estab-
lis hing then- relations on the most perfect erp.ity. '
it Js in this spirit of reciprocal justice, I have received the rUh...
;.h.ch you have done n.e thi honor to transmit to me and t tVw h
out iM-epKlging any thing in their regard, I oua:ht above .1.^1;
re.r;nrk lo v.u, that France has also%Xaims^Sng o^tf moS'uce
against the Gov.r.ment of the United States, t would app ar^a.^e
cX^:!:^:^:::^::'^^' ^^— andar;:^;^;^'^;^
1 he intention of his Majesty would be. that these claims and the
other points in rp.estion, on which the convention of the 24 T T, i^
o ?c^: iS'^-nui; "'^'?^ '""v^'^'^' '' that n^^^;:, f • :
10 Ttn.nnate, simultaneously, and n a definitive ininm^v L.>,.r .
.I.Tst™,linr^ro/ ,,mn . 't I ["""•<-'"» «"»<■ <»• pretext of misun-
of ti,oi,. ;;'^,:^;ti ve siuiiccts '" "'" *^™ ^"'"=^' •-'"'' «" «'« i'--'
ce.^a,., f,. a nogotiatc'cha:.;';' tot":' ", / t'tith ;^ "" """"^ "^-
tlie lu'solialion. ""= P"™'' ="' '""=' for I"ll-suing also
Accept, sir, the assurances of the hiKi, consideration, &-.
-r, ., -f"- "E VILLELE.
»;.'/! l/ie I'ort Fn'io of Foreipi .Iffairs,
L913
77
Xo 22— b.
Mr* Gallatin to Mr. de Villelc.
Paris, ^''ovcmher I2th, 1S22. ,
Sir: I had the honor to receivb your Excellency's IcUer of the 6th
instant.
I have special powers to negotiate a convention, providing for the
just claims of citizens of the United States against France, as also for
the like claims of French subjects against the United States, with such
jjcrson or persons as may have a like authority froni His Most Chris-
tian Majesty.
As minister of the United States, I am authorized to discuss the
• question respecting the construction of the 8th article of the Louisiana
treaty, and to give and receive explanations on tliat subject. But the
negotiation on tliat point having been transferred to Washington, no
special powers, in that respect, have been transmitted to me. I had
understood, in the course of the conference I had the honor to have
with your Excellency on the 23d of September, and had accordingly
written to my Government, that it was not intended to insist that that
subject should be blended with that of private claims. It is, indeed,
obvious that it would be utterly unjust to make the admission of thof^c
to depend on the result of a negotiation on a subject with v.hicli they
have no connection whatever, and the difficulties respecting which
ai'e of a date posterior to that of the claims.
All the rejjresentations which His Majesty's Government has made
to that of the United States, whether on private or on public subjects.
have uniformly been taken into consideration, and received that at-
tention to which they were so justly entitled. In no instance has the
Government of the United States declined to open a discussion on any
subject thus offered to tlieir consideration by France, or made it a
preliminary condition, that the discussion should also embrace some
other subject in whici) they m.ight happen to take a greater interest.
The question respecting the 8th article oi the Louisiana treaty has, in
particular, been the subject of a voluminous correspondence, in tlie
course of which, the arguments in support of the const -uction insist-
ed on by each party, respectively, were made known to the other. I
have, in t!ie meanwiiile, for six years, made unceasing application to
His Majesty's Government for the settlement of claims to a vast
amount, affecting the ^Interest of numerous individuals, and arising
from flagrant violations of the law of nations and of the rights of the
United States, without having ever been able to obtain, to tins day,
satisfaction, in a single instance, or even that the subject should be
taken into consideration and discussed. After so many vexatious de-
lays, for which different causes have, at different times, been assigned,
it cannot now be intended again to postpone the investigation of that
subject, by insisting that it should be treated in connection with one
foreign to it, and which has already been discussed. The United
States have, at least, the right to ask that their demands should also
78 [91]
])C examined ami discussed, and I trust that since I am authorized to
treat as well concerning the claims of French suhjects against the
United States, as respecting those of American citizens against
France, a distinct negotiation to that effect will he opened without any
further delay.
Permit me, at the same time, to renew to your Excellency tlic as-
surances that the United States have the most earnest desire that
every suhjcct of diiTerence hctween the two countries should be ami-
cably arranged, and their commercial and political relations placed
on the most friendly and solid footing. They will he ready to open
again negotiations on the subject of the 8th article of the Louisiana
treaty, and on every other which remains to be adjusted, and will
have no objection that the seat of those negotiations should be trans-
ferred from Washington to this })lace. i.
Although my powers to treat i-espccting every subject connected
witli the commerce of the two countries may embrace that of a consu-
lar convention, yet, as this had not been contemplated by my Govern-
ment, I am not, at this time, prepared to conclude an arrangement
for that purpose.
I request your Excellency to accept the assurance, &c.
ALBEUT GALLATIN.
No. 23.
Jilr. Gallatin to Mr. AdamSf J^o. 257.
Paris, l9Ui A''ovemher, 1822.
Sir : I received last night, and have the honor to enclose a copy
of Mr. de Villele's answer, (dated 1 5th inst.) to my letter of the 12th.
You will perceive that, without taking any notice of the reasons 1
had urgt'd, why a distinct negotiation should be immediately opened,
on the subject of the claims against both Governments; he insists that
this shall be treated in connection with the question respecting the
construction of the 8th article of the Louisiana treaty. The object is
too obvious to require any comments on my part, and this final de-
cision leaves me no other course than to refer the whole to my Go-
vernment.
I have the honor to be, with great respect, sir, your most obedient
servant. ''' •
ALBERT GALLATIN.
[91] 79
No. 23 — a.
Mr. de Villele to Mr. Gallatin.
• [translation. ]
Paris, \5th ^'^ovemher, 1822.
Sir : You have done me the honor to announce to me, on the 12th
of this month, that you were authorized to negotiate a convention, re-
lative to the claims of American citizens at^ainst France, and to
those of France against the United States; but that you have received
no power to enter upon a negotiation concerning the interpretation
of the 8th Article of the Louisiana Treaty.
The discussions which have ensued upon this last point between
your Government and the Minister Plenipotentiary of the King, to
the United States, having come to nothing, and this question remain-
ing thus undecided, it is as proper as it is just to renew the examin-
ation of it: it touches upon too great interests not to be treated with
renewed attention, and to be abandoned.
If a new arrangement takes place for the claims which are still in
question, it ought to embrace them all, and the desire of the King's Go-
vernment is to permit no difticulty to remain, and to leave nothing un-
decided in the relations of the two countries.
With this very motive, sir, I have demanded in the letter which I
had the honor of addressing to you on the 6th of this month, that the
negotiation to be opened upon the respective claims, should likewise
include a consular convention. If your powers for discussing these
different points should not appear to you sufficiently extended, for
making them the object of a negotiation, I think, sir, that you will
judge it proper to demand of your Government supplementary autho-
rity, for coming to an arrangement which can only have the utility
proposed by the two Governments, by its embracing all the questions
and claims which are still in dispute.
I can only refer, sir, upon this subject to the communications
which I have had the honor of making to you on the 6th of this
month, and with which you have doubtless made your Government
acquainted.
Accept, sir, the assurance of my high consideration.
The Minister of Finance, charged ad interim
with the Port Folio of Foreign Aifairs.
JH. J)e VILLELE,
No 24.
Mr. Gallatin to Mr. Mams, .Xo. 241.
Paris, 5f/i January, 1823.
Sir: I had, after his return from Verona, a conversation with the
Duke of Montmorency, on our claims. I complained in strong terms
'"^■11 I I I iMMIiii iTTI' ¥Ji9
80 [91]
of the decision taken by Mr. do VIHclc, and said, tliat his insisting (a
connect that subject with the discussion respecting the constructioti
of the 8th article of the Louisiana treaty, would be considered in the
United States as an attempt to avoid altogether the payment of the
indemnities due to our citizens. I then stated, tliat the reluctance
evinced by the Government of France, to make a general arrange-
ment on that subject, had induced the President to authoiize me to
make a -separate aj)plication for the Antwerp claims; that what had
now taken place, afforded an additional proof of the difficulties which
stood in the way of a general transaction; and that, wliilstthis seem-
ed indefinitely postponed, I hoj)cd that the special aj)plication would
at least be attended to, and receive a favorable decision.
The Duke, after some genei'al observations on the earnest desire
of France, that all the subjects of difference between the two coun-
tries should be definitively arranged, and declaring that this was (he
only motive for insisting on a negotiation embracing all those points,
said that to take up at this time any special claim, appeared to him
inconsistent with the official communication made to me by Mr. dc
Villele, and that we must wait at least till'l had received an answer from
my Government, to whom 1 must of course have transmitted the cor-
respondence. He promised, however, to lay my request before the
King's council, but wilhout giving me any expectation that it would
be favorably received.
It is probable that even this has been prevented by the Duke's re-
signation, whicl) took place a few days after our conversation; and
1 think it quite useless to renew, at tins time, tlie application to his
successor Mr. de Chateaubriand. I will therefore wait till I receive
your instructions in answer to my several despatches on this sub-
ject.
I have the honor to be,
With great respect, sir,
Your most obedient servant,
ALBERT GALLATIN.
No. 25,
J/r. Gallailn io Mr, Mams. Xo. 250,
Paris, '27th Fchruartj, 1823.
Sir: I had designedly abstained from answering Mr. de Villele's
vi^fc'tiklst letter, of the 15th of November, in order to be able to avail my-
"^a" '^ self of any change in the ministi-y, or of any other favorable circum-
stance which might arise. Tiie more I have reflected on the gi'ound
assumed by this Government, on the subject of our claims, and on the
attempt to connect their discussion with the question arising under the
eighth article of the Louisiana treaty, the more I have felt satisfied
[91] 81
that it was impossible that the United States should depart from the
true construction of that article, and acquiesce in that contended for
bv Franco, and that a renewed discussion on that subject would be
unprotitallc, and lead to no result m hatever. As a last, but I be-
lieve, unavailing effort, I have concluded to express that conviction to
the French Government, and have, accordingly, addressed, this day,
to Mr. Chateaubriand the letter of wiiich I have the honor to enclose
a (-"opy. ,. . . ,
I have no doubt that there \^ not at this time any disposition to do
us justice, and that if we were even to make some concessions, with
respect to the article abovemeotioned, we could not succeed in making
an arrangem.ent, on tiie subject of the claims, satisfactory to the par-
ties, or such as the Government of the United States would feel justi-
f;ed*to accept. With that view of the subject, it appears to me evi-
dent that it is less disadvantageous to let the question rest for the pre-
sent as it is, than to entangle ourselves by consenting to blend it with
tiie discussion of the Louisiana treaty; whilst, on the other hand, the
comnr.inication of this determination, coming from me, before any
specinc instructions can have been received from you, is less peremp-
tory than if founded on these instructions, does not commit Govern-
\ merit, and leaves the United States at liberty to resume, at a more fa-
■* voi able tune, the negotiation on the ground which may then appear
most e'igible.
Indepenc^ent of unforeseen circumstances winch may alter the ilis-
positions of this Government, I can perceive bui one mode calculated
to produce some effect. It is that the parties interested should peti-
tion Con2:ress, and that there should be some marked expression of
thr sentiments of that body in their favor. The apathy of the great
mass of the claimants, and the silence preserved in that respect, mir-
in"- so many years, in all our public discussions, have, undoubtedly,
pr yiured here the impression that very little interest was felt on that
subject, and, in some degree, contributed in rendering our efforts to
obtain justice unavailing.
I have the honor to be,
W ith great respect, sir.
Your most obedient servant,
ALBERT GALLATIN.
No. 25.— a.
Mr. Gallatin to Viscount ae Chateaubriand.
Paris, Z7th February, 1823.
Sit?: I had the honor to receive H. E. Count de Villele's letter of the
15th of November last, by which, notwithstanding the rcmonstrauGes
11
«2 C ^i 3
contained in mine of the 12th, H. E. being at that time charged with
thf Oepartincnt of Foreign Affairs, still insisted that the discussion
of the claims of individuals of both nations upon the two govern-
ments, respectively, should not take place unless it was connected
with a renewed negotiation on the 8th article of the Louisiana treaty.
A conversation I had the honor to have with H. E. the Duke de
Mo itmorency after his return from Verona, induced me to hope, al-
thougM he did not encourage any expectation of a different result,
that he would however again lay the subject before his majesty's
council of ministers. This circumstance, the subsequent change in
the department of foreign affairs, and the objects of primary impor-
tance which have heretofore necessarily engrossed your excellency's
attention, have prevented an earlier official answer to H. E. Count
de Villele's letter.
It has, together with the others on the same subject, as he had na-
turally anticipated, been of course transmitted to my government.
But. on a review of the correspondence of Mr. Adams with Mr.
Hyde de Neuville and with myself, 1 must express my perfect con-
viction, that the subject having been maturely examined and tho-
roughly discussed, there cannot be the least expectation that the United
States will alter their view of it, or acquiesce in the construction put
by His Majesty's minister on the 8th article of the Louisiana treaty.
It is not my intention at this moment to renew a discussion which
seems to have been already exhausted; but I will beg leave simply to
state the question to your excellency.
It was agreed by the article above mentioned, that the ships of
France should forever be treated upon the footing of the most favored
nation in the ports of Louisiana.
Vessels of certain foreign nations being now treated in the ports of
the United States (including those of Louisiana) on the same footing
with American vessels, in consideration of the American vessels be-
ing treated in the ports of those nations on the same footing with
their own vessels; France has required that French vessels should,
-by virtue of the said article, be treated in the ports of Louisiana on
the same footing with the vessels of those nations, w ithont allowing on
her part the consideration or reciprocal condition by virtue of which
those vessels are thus treated.
The United States contend that the right to be treated upon the foot-
ing of the most favored nation, when not otherwise defined, and
when expressed only in those words, is that, and can only he that of
being entitled to that treatment gratuitously, if such nation eiijojs
it gratuitously, and on paying the same equivalent if it has been
granted in consideration of an equivalent. Setting aside every collat-
eral matter and subsidiary argument, they say, that the article in
question, expressed as it is, can have no other meaning, is sosceptible
of no othei- construction, for this plain and incontrovertible reason,
that, if the French vessels were allowed to recei\e gratuitously the same
treatment which those of certain otiier nations receive only in consi-
deration of an equivalent, they would not be treated as the most fa-
L913 85
vored nation, but more favorably than any other nation. And since
the article must necessarily have the meaning contended for by
the United States and no other, the omission or insertion ol words to
define it is wholly immaterial, a definition being necessary only when
the expressions nsed are of doubtful import, and the insertion of words
to that effect in some other treaties, belonging to that class of expla-
natory but superfluous phrases of which instances are to be tound m
so many treaties. . ^i ^ • • x
It mi"-ht, indeed, have perhaps been sufficient to say, that, in point
of fact,°there was no most favored nation in the United States, the
ri'^ht enjoined by the vessels of certain foreign nations to he treated
in the ports of the United States as American vessels, m consider-
ation of American vessels receiving a similar treatment in the ports
of those nations, not being a favor but a mere act of reciprocity.
Let me also, observe, that the pretension of France Avould, if ad-
mitted, leave no altt?rnative to the United States than either to suffer
the whole commerce between France and Louisiana to be carried ex-
clusively in French vessels, or to renounce the right ot making
arrangements with other nations, deemed essential to our prospenty,
and having for object not to lay restrictions on commerce but to
remove th?m. If the meaning of the 8th article of the Louisiatia
treaty was such indeed as has been contended for on the part of F ranee,
the United States, bound to fulfil tiieir engagements must submit to
the consciuences, whatever these might be: but th.s having been
proven not to be the case, the observation is made only to show that
the United States never can, either for the sake of obtaining indem-
nities for their citizens, or from their anxious desire to settle, by con-
ciliatory arrangements, all their diff-erences with France be brought
to acquiesce in the erroneous construction put upon the article m ques-
^''r'he proposal made by H. E. Mr. de Villele, in his letter of the 6th
of NovJ^nber, and reiterated in that of the 1 5th, can th^f «J« \^^ '^^
other eff-ect than to produce unnecessary delays, and ^^^J'^, if pei sis ed
in, be tantamount to an indefinite postponement ^J/'^f .^^.^/"/"f ^^^^
and settlement of the claims of the citizens of the Um ed Sta e jt
will remain for his Majesty's Governmen to decide '^^^^^^J^'^^^^^^^
termination be consistent with justice, ^'^^f '^^'' *^%^.^!^ ^vrOov^^^^^
private individuals should be thus ^^Ijourned because the t^^oG^^^^^^
ments happen to diff-er in opi"i«^«A^ '"^'J'- ^ SnTnnirallin^
those claims. Having nothing to add to my ^'^^^y.^;^^^^^^,^^^
applications on that subject, my only object at J'^^^ '^ ^"^^"^Jl^;,^^^^^^^
ti show that I cannot expect any instructions from my Government
that will alter the state of the question.
I request your Excellency to accept f^/^^^r-J'^iLATIN.
xm\Sin!Si:^n
84 L91]
No. 26.
Mr. Brown to Mr. Adams, JVo. 1 7.
Pahis, JVox?. 29, 1884.
Sir: Not ha^^ng recexA'^ed any answer to the letter which, on the
22d ultimo, I adchessed to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, 1 sent
hitn a note requesting that he would favor me with a ronlerence at as
early a day as his convenience m ould permit, and received his answer
appointing the 25th instant for that purpose.
I waiti'd upon him at the appointed hoisr, and after an interchange
of the chstomaiT salutations, 1 remindeil him that 1 had signiiied to
him my wish to converse freely v.-ith him on the subject of the claims
of American citizens on the Government of France, and that the
state of my health alone had prevented me from asking a conference
on that topic prior to the transmission of my letter of the 22d ultimo.
I then, in a concise manner, called his attcnti()n to the state of the
negotiation, and exi;resse<:l my hope that the French Government
would no longer arrest the progi-ess of the discussion by insisting on
connecting it witji the question ar-ising out of the 8th article of the
Louisiana treaty. The two subjecis, I cojitended, were entirely
dissimilar in their nature; and, therefore, could not. with any degree
of propriety, be eujhraced in the same discussion. In the one case,
American citizens ask indemnity for their property, which has been
taken from them undei' the authority of the French Government, and
in opposition to the plainest principlf^s of law and justice- in the
other, the Governments of the United States and France disagree in
their construction of an article in a treaty whicli ha« no relation to
the question of claims. The justice of tlie claims of \merican citi-
zens has never been denied by France, whilst the United States have
not hitherto seen any reason to admit that France has any Just claim
uruler the 8th article of the Louisiana treaty. I a~kei ];im whetlier
it was either just or reasonable that tliese claims 'hould leniaiu un-
satisfied until the two Governments could agree in their interpreta-
tion of the treaty? Although the United States have been always
ready to continue to discuss with France the question on the treaty,
yet they cannot consent to connect it with claims for indemnity. I
reminded him, that, in every instance in which France had presented
a claim, either on behalf of the Government or her citizens, four ;'ed
on any supposed injury done by the United States, tlie claim had
been carefully considered, w ithout ej tangling it with any other que •-
tion, and, when well foimded, had been.idmitted and settled, that the
United States had a I'ight to expect a corresponding course oi fair
conduct on the ])art of France, and, therefore, had seen w ith deep
regret, the ground assumed in the present instance, and tlte delay
consequent upon it. I concluded by expressing a liope that t'le nego-
tiation for our claims, so long susj)ended, would be resumed, and re-
peated the offer already made, to ejnbrace, in the same negotiation,
any claims on the part of French sidijects, against the GovcrnmeHt
of the United States.
[91]
85
X,e Baron ae Danjas ^^XX^^^^ ^
Since he had been placed at the heauoii i ^. ^le du-
Affairs, had been so f J*'^"^ .''^^;„",^ e fmak^^
ties so numerous ^^f^^l^^^^f^^;, Sence las voluminous; and that,
with the subject: that \^^ .^^^^^^^^''^^"^ i„tter he had not hitherto
with the most earnest des.re to J^^^^^' ^^^^^^^^^^^ eu^sory perusal;
had the necessary time f «:^^.^^.^;™ ^"^fj hf S not discuss "it with
that, being ""^^^"^'"J^,^^^ Ve^,^^^^ ?o give it a careful
me on equal ground, but that ^1^^^^^°^^^^^ f asked him if I
examination, and to send me ^. ^f fi";*;;"^^^^^^^^ He said that he
could hope for it in time to send b> ^l^e "e^J v^^^^^^^ „or could he
could no? Vror^l^lll^^^^^^^^^ should have
precisely say at ^^''f ? J'^,/ ""'» „.,e^;re it. I assigned as a reason
it as soon as he could find ^^^^ ,\P^Xw l„,^er, the call made on
for wishing to be "^mshed wi^. an e^^^^^^^^^^^ last session. He
the President by the House o I^^P f ^^^^^^^^^^ „f that branch of our
said, he was already informed of ^^f.P^^Jf J'Vf^";^ questions of dif-
Legislature, and felt every ^^^VOsMxon to bm^ lllZT^, possible,
ference between the two 7-^-^^^^^^.^,;^^ at Snt'of tie object
The conference here ^emnated without the a ^^^^ .^^ time I
which induced me to ask it. I^y";Jr"an I anticipate, from any
s;^^b;^M= - VI^^^^- -^^^ ^« ^»^ -^"- '' '''
answer which 1 m^^ ^'^^^^^^'-^^ ^ ,,ith great respect, sir,
' ^-^ruX-r^bedient an^d very — s^e.an^^^^
^^tia^r^. .^az^l^TttMR
