GIFT OF
Bancroft
LIBRARY
REVIEW
OP
THE VETO MESSAGE OF PRESIDENT PIERCE
OF FEBRUARY 17, 1855,
ON THE BILL RELATING TO FRENCH SPOLIATIONS.
0
flancron
LIBRARY
REVIEW
Of the Veto Message of President Pierce of February ,17 ', lBS>5t,93£4b4$i&tl!eja&
to French
The veto message of President Pierce on the bill " To provide for the ascertain
ment and satisfaction of claims of American citizens, for spoliations committed by
the French prior to the 31st of July, 1801," challenged a prompt exposition of
such of its objectionable features as were deemed injurious to the prerogatives and
rights of Congress, and to the rights of the claimants, for whose relief Congress had
voted the bill. For that purpose the Hon. John M. Clayton, of the United States
Senate, who had elaborately examined the subject in all its ramifications, and uni
formly advocated the cause of the claimants for more than a quarter of a century,
considered it incumbent on himself to make such exposition before the Senate ; and
for that purpose caused to be prepared the documents hereto subjoined, marked A,
B, C, (see appendix,) to which he would refer in his contemplated speech, and
would also, by motion, cause said documents to be printed for the use of the
Senate.
Unfortunately for the claimants, the pressure of other business, thence to the
close of the session, occupying all the time of Congress, prevented his carrying that
intention into effect ; and I am authorized to say that to that cause alone should
the omission be ascribed, and that it has caused him unfeigned regret.
It seems, therefore, to devolve on the undersigned, as the protector of the claim
ants, to point out some of the prominent errors into which the President has fallen,
or rather his advisers have led him, which may hereafter be more judiciously dis
closed, and in a tone of reasoning more forcible and impressive, by the enlightened
and esdmable Senator before mentioned. The writer will claim no further merit
than fidelity to the truth, having no pretensions to display, no unkind feelings to
indulge, nor favor or affection to court or fear ; and though conscious that a weak
blow recoils, while a strong one penetrates, the respectful caution due to the execu
tive office, and to the incumbent charged with it, will be carefully observed.
While the veto message expressly admits that there is no constitutional question
involved in this case, it contends that the Executive has, of right, the power to veto
any private bill submitted to him by Congress. If the exercise of such arbitrary
power be tolerated by Congress, their constitutional prerogative and duty " to pay
the debts" of the nation, are at once annihilated. How the early high authorities
of our country regarded this matter will be seen on reference to the proceedings in
1791 on the bill to incorporate a Bank of the United States, which was approved
by President Washington on the 25th February, of that year. The President and
his Cabinet entertained doubt of the constitutionality of the measure ; wnereupon
Mr. Jefferson prepared an official opinion, which appears to have led to the approval
of the bill. The opinion concludes thus :
" The negative of the President is the shield provided by the constitution to protect against
the invasion of the legislature: 1st, the rights of the Executive; 2d, of the judiciary; 3d, of
the States and State legislatures. The present is the case of a right remaining exclusively with
the States, and is, consequently, one of those intended by the constitution to be placed under
his protection. It must be added, however, that unless the President's mind, on a view of
everything which is urged for and against this bill, is tolerably clear that it is unauthorized
by the constitution, if the pro and the con hang so even as to balance his judgment, a just
respect for the wisdom of the legislature would naturally decide the balance in favor of their
opinion. It is chiefly for cases where they are clearly misled by error, ambition, or interest,
that the constitution has placed a check in the negative ot the President."
The veto message under consideration does not charge Congress with " ambition
or interest," but it does charge that "they are clearly misled by error;" and it
does charge the Senate of 1801 with conduct that would disgrace the lowest Oi
mankind. To these two specific charges, passing over for the present divers others
for future notice, a few remarks will be mainly directed. Preliminary thereto, how-
ever>dt is. proper to state, in brief, such outline of the claims, and of the negotiations
relating1;, to them; as >-'sha;H -reader the subject-matter and remarks intelligible.
.From 1793 to"thei-datfe-df the convention of 1800, France had captured Ameri-
• ';,'ii vessels anu e.ajgoes to a°very great extent: first, on the ground of necessity;
her crops having &ilexi,t;a^d, r^er people being threatened with famine — for these
she promised indemnity, and did in fact pay for some of them, and passed laws,
yet unexecuted, for a small other portion. Subsequently, and during an unexam
pled war between nearly all Europe combined against France,* for the avowed pur
pose of starving the French nation in punishment for beheading her King, the
United States entered into a treaty with England, (who was at the head of said
coalition) by the terms of which the latter was permitted to seize our provision
vessels, bound to France, on paying for their cargoes a small profit on the invoice
cost: this was Mr. Jay's treaty, so called, dated November 19, 1794, long held
under advisement, and ratified in February, 1796. Under the provisions of said
treaty, the United States considered, as of its own impulse, and so carried into full
effect, that the right of France, under her treaty with us of 1778, to the use of
our ports for her ships of war, privateers, and their prizes, to the exclusion of those
of her enemies — which she had for years enjoyed with our entire consent — should
no longer continue, but should be enjoyed by her enemy, England. The United
vStates had also refused to execute the guarantee of the French islands, all of which
had consequently fallen into the hands of Great Britain. These two important
rights of France, viz: the use of our ports, and the guarantee of her islands, were
perpetual obligations; for which she gave us a priceless consideration, in the achieve
ment and guarantee of our independence.
At the period of the announcement of Mr. Jay's treaty, France was in a state
of frenzy ; her islands captured, famine in her territory, a frightful civil war in her
very vitals, the ports of the United States shut against her cruisers and prizes, and
her supplies of food from the United States wholly cut off by British capture, with
our assent; and the allied vindictive armies crowding against Fiance with such
overwhelming force as threatened to crush her. These exciting circumstances led
her to charge the United States with "perfidiously" co operating with her enemies;
and in a revengeful spirit she ordered that the ocean should be swept of American
vessels, including those bound to French ports. And to add to the seventy of this
order, she chartered her vessels of war to privateersmen for a share of the booty
they might acquire by capturing American vessels, and so framed her laws that
condemnation should with certainty follow every capture. This outrageous con
duct was continued for several years, and nearly destroyed American commerce.
In order to make sure the condemnation of every captured vessel, the French gov
ernment revived an ancient municipal law of France which declared to be lawful
prize every vessel found without having on board a role d'equipage — a document
not required by our treaties with France, and which it was well known no American
vessel carried.
In one of the communications to the French government, our envoys, in 1797,
remarked :
* At this period, the captures of American vessels by the French were greatly increased, of
which the American minister at Paris complained to that government. The reply of the Min
ister of Foreign Affairs to Mr. Monroe, dated October 14, 1793, is as follows:
" We hope that the government of the United States will attribute to their true cause the
abuses of which you complain, as well as other violations of which our cruisers may render
themselves guilty, in the course of the present war. It must perceive how difficult it is to
contain within just limits the indignation of our marines, and in general of all the French
patriots, against a people who speak the same language and having the same habits as the
free Americans. The difficulty of distinguishing our allies from our enemies has often been
the cause of offences committed on board your vessels ; all that the administration could do
is to order indemnification to those who have suffered and to punish tne guilty."
3
" It cannot escape notice that the question of the role d'equipage may involve in it every vessel
taken from the United States."
And in the report of their proceedings by the envoys, made to our Secretary of
State, dated October 22, 1797, they say:
" The subject of the role d1 equipage was also mentioned ; and we asked what assurance we
could have if France insisted on the right of adding to the stipulations of our treaty, or of alter
ing them by municipal regulations, that any future treaty we could make should be observed.
M. Bellaney said that he did not assert the principle of changing treaties by municipal regu
lations, but that the Directory considered its regulation concerning the role d'equipage as com
porting with the treaty. We observed to him that none of our vessels had what the French
termed a role d'equipage ; and that, if we were to surrender all the property which had been
taken from our citizens, in cases where their vessels Avere not furnished with such a role, the
[our] government would be responsible to its citizens for the property so surrendered ; since
it would be impossible to undertake to assert that there was any plausibility in the allegation
that our treaty required a role d'equipage."
And in Mr. Marshall's journal of proceedings at Paris, as reported tc our Secre
tary of State, dated December 24, 1797, appears the following:
" I would positively oppose any admission of the claim of any French citizen if not accom
panied with the admission of the claims of the American citizens of property captured and
condemned for want of a role d'equipage. My reason for conceiving that this ought to be
stipulated expressly was a conviction that, if it was referred to commissioners, it would be
committing absolutely to chance as complete a right as any individual ever possessed."
It would appear, therefore, that the captured vessels were condemned on the
ground stated; and it will not be overlooked that this is the identical class of cases
that were embraced in the 2d article of the convention of 1800, and for which the
vetoed bill made provision.
The rapacity with which American vessels were pursued by France1 will be seen
in the following official report of the Secretary of State to 'Congress of January
18, 1799, from a single French port, St. Domingo. All the other French ports in
the West Indies and Europe, and also Spanish ports, exhibited a like conduct:
" The commissioners of the French government at St. Domingo, in February, 179*7, wrote to
the Minister of Marine, (and the extract of the letter appeared in the official journal of the
Executive Directory, of the 5th June,) 'that having found no resource in finance, and
knowing the unfriendly disposition of the Americans, and to avoid perishing in distress, they
had armed for cruising ; and that already eighty-seven cruisers were at sea; and that, for three
months preceding, the administration had subsisted, and individuals been enriched, with the
products of those 'prizes. That the decree of the 2d July [which directs the French cruisers
to treat neutrals as the English treat them, and to capture vessels bound to or from English
ports] was not known to them until five months afterwards. But the shocking conduct of
the Americans, and the indirect knowledge of the intentions of our government, made it our
duty to order reprisals even before we had received official notice of the decree. They felicitate
themselves that American vessels were daily taken; and declare that they had learnt, by divers
persons from the continent, that the Americans were perfidious, corrupt, the friends of Eng
land, and that, therefore, their vessels no longer entered the French ports unless carried in by
force. After this recital before the Council of Five Hundred, Pastoret, a distinguished member,
made the following remarkable reflections :'
" ' On reading this letter, we should think that we had been dreaming ; that we had been
transported into a savage country, where men, still ignorant of the empire of morals and of
laws, commit crimes without shame and without remorse, and applaud themselves for their
robberies, as Paulus ^Emilius or Cato would have praised themselves for an eminent service
rendered to their country. Cruisers armed against a friendly nation ! Reprisals, when it is
we ourselves who attack ! Reprisals against a nation that has not taken a single vessel of
ours! Riches acquired by the confiscation of the ships of a people to whom we are united by
treaties, and whom no declaration of war had separated from us 1 The whole discourse of the
agents may be reduced to these few words : Having nothing wherewith to buy, 1 seize ; I
make myself amends for the property which I want by the piracy which enriches me ; and
then I slander those whom I have pillaged. This is robbery justified by selfishness.' "
The American vessels then, and subsequently, captured in the spirit and manner
thus described, were the identical vessels for which compensation is now claimed
from the United States, and provided for in the vetoed bill now under considera
tion. The clear liability resting on France to respond in damages for these violent
depredations has never been doubted either by France or the United States ; tl e
former freely admitted her liability, and the latter inflexibly insisted on the justice
of the claims as against France. The considerations which induced the United
States to offer, at a subsequent date, these spoliation claims of American citizens to
France, in set- off of political claims of a national character, alleged to be due to
her from the United States, will be hereinafter explained.
The extent of the depredations on American commerce by French cruisers is not
a matter of speculation. On the 18th of January, 1799, the Secretary of State,
Mr. Pickering, made a report to Congress, in which he says :
" On the 24th of May, 1798, the minister {Talleyrand] sent his principal secretary to inform
Mr. Gerry that his government did not wish lo break the British treaty, [Mr. Jay's ';] but ex
pected such provisions as would indemnify France, and put heron a footing with that nation.
Yet that treaty had been made by the French government its chief pretence for those unjust
and cruel depredations on American commerce which have brought distress on multitudes
and ruin on many of our citizens; and occasioned a total loss of property to the United
States of probably more than twenty millions of dollars ; besides subjecting our fellow-citizens
to insults, stripes, wounds, torture, and imprisonment."
A dispassionate reader of President Pierce's inaugural speech, would suppose be
had this very case in view in using the following language :
" The rights which belong to us as a nation are not alone to be regarded, but those which
pertain to every citizen in his individual capacity, at home and abroad, must be sacredly
maintained. So long as he can discern every star in its place upon the ensign, without
wealth to purchase for him preferment, or title to secure for him place, it will be his privilege,
and must be his acknowledged right, to stand unabashed even in the presence of princes, with
a proud consciousness that he is himself one of a nation of sovereigns, and that he cannot, in
legitimate pursuit, wander so far from home that the agent whom he shall leave in the place
which I now occupy will not see that no rude hand of power or tyrannical passion is laid
upon him with impunity."
The sincerity of this proffered pledge of protection by the President has been
made worse than doubtful by the ungracious veto on the bill for the relief of that
class of sufferers. He was under no obligation to make such pledge ; but having
voluntarily made it, he could not violate it with impunity.
In the month of July, 1797, a mission of three envoys, Messrs. Pinckney, Mar
shall, and Gerry, was sent to France to demand compensation due to our merchants
for French spoliations ; and to endeavor to purchase a release of the United States
from the guarantee of the French islands, for which they were amhorized to offer
to France a war subsidy in money or provisions to the amount of two hundred
thousand dollars annually. That mission failed to accomplish anything except the
acknowledgment of the justice of these claims; for, during their residence in France,
that government submitted to thein, on the 8th of November, 1797, a proposition
containing the following :
" There shall be named a commission of five members, agreeably to a form to be established,
for the purpose of deciding upon the reclamations of the Americans, relative to the prizes
made on them by the French privateers.
" The American envoys will engage that their government shall pay the indemnifications,
or the amount of the sums already decreed to the American creditors of the French republic,
and those which shall be adjudged to the claimants by the commissioners. This payment
shall be made under the name of an advance to the French republic, who will repay it in a
time and manner to be agreed on."
Strange to say, our envoys declined this liberal proposition, so framed, because of
the avowed inability in France to pay promptly, and upon the ground that Eng
land would regard the transaction as a covert aid to France, and probably lead to
war.
When the envoys returned to the United States, the French depredations were
much extended ; whereupon our government, by legislative action, dated July 7,
1798, declared the treaties with France null and void from that date, upon the
alleged ground that France had repeatedly violated them : whereas, in point of
fact, the treaty of alliance had never been violated by her; but, on the contrary,
her full and more than complete compliance with its provisions had commanded
and obtained our highest admiration, and most grateful thanks. Besides, the
treaty containing the guarantee of the French islands, and the treaty securing to
France the exclusive use of our ports for her ships of war, privateers, and prizes,
were perpetual obligations — on their face they were to be in force "forever." It
was, therefore, utterly impossible that the United States could deprive France of
the benefits, or release herself from the obligations so stipulated, by any legislative
act whatever, since nothing but war, or the consent of the contracting parties to a
treaty, can terminate a treaty; and France contended, with irresistible force, that
even war could not have annulled these treaties, they being perpetual on their face,
and for that perpetuity she had paid a full and satisfactory equivalent.
The real motive for that annulling act is thus disclosed by the three envoys to
France on a second mission, viz : Messrs. Ellsworth, Davie, and Murray, instructed
in October, 1799, who, in their note to the French ministers, dated Paris, July 22,
1800, say:
"That it had become impossible for the United States to save their commerce from the dep
redations of French cruisers, but by resorting to defensive measures ; and that, as, by their
constitution, existing treaties were the supreme law of the land, and the judicial department,
who must be governed by them, is not under the control of the Executive or legislative, it
was also impossible for them to legalize defensive measures, incompatible with the French
treaties, while they continued to exist. Then it was that they were formally renounced, and
from that renunciation there resulted necessarily a priority in favor of the British treaty, as
to an exclusive asylum for privateers and prizes."
This second mission effected the negotiation of the convention of September 30,
1800. Their instructions, after reciting the French depredations on our commerce,
proceed thus:
" This conduct of the French republic would well have justified an immediate declaration of
war on the part of the United States; but desirous of maintaining peace, and still willing to
leave open the door to reconciliation with France, the United States contented themselves
with preparations for defence and measures calculated to protect their commerce. * * *
First. At the opening of the negotiation, you will infrom the French ministers that the United
States expect from France, as an indispensable condition of the treaty, a stipulation to make to the
citizens of the United States full compensation for all losses and damages which they shall have
sustained by reason of irregular or illegal captures or condemnations of their vesseels and other
property, under color of authority or commissions from the French republic or its agents.
* * * The following points are to be considered as ultimata: First. That an article be
inserted for establishing a board, with suitable powers, to hear and determine the claims of
our citizens, for the causes hereinbefore expressed, and binding France to pay or secure payment
of the sums which shall be awarded."
Very early in the negotiation under said instructions, the American envoys
brought forward for consideration the spoliation claims of American merchants ;
whereupon the French ministers at once and freely admitted them to be justly due
by Fiance, but at the same time insisted on the uninterrupted continuance of the
treaties of 1778, which the envoys contended were annulled by the act of Congress
before mentioned.
On the llth of August, 1800, the French ministers, in a note to the envoys, say:
"In the first place, they will insist upon the principle already laid down in the former note,
viz : that the treaties which united France and the United States are not broken; that even war
could not have broken them ; but that the state of misunderstanding which has existed for
80me time between France and the United States, by the acts of some agents rather than the
will of the respective governments, has not been a state of war, at least on the side of France.
" If the reflections presented on this subject in the note of the French ministers, of the 8th
of the present month, suffice to lead the ministers of the United States to the acknowledgment
of the treaties, the first consequence which will result from them, and which the ministers of
France will be eager to recognise anew, is, that the parties on both sides ought to be compen
sated for the damages which have been mutually caused by their misunderstanding."
The envoys proposed to defer the payment of the French spoliations until the
United S'ates should restore to France her claimed rights under the old treaties;
but the French ministers refused, and this refusal shows that France held the old
treaties as of greater value than the spoliation claims.
Various propositions were made by the respective ministers, in which the spolia
tion claims were regarded as indisputable on both sides, and that the sole difficulty
lay in the continuous operations and indemnities incurred under the old treatit s.
Very ingenious and elaborate arguments pro and con were offered, when, finally,
the American envoys yielded the point at issue by offering:
6
" 1st. Let it be declared that the former treaties are renewed and confirmed, and shall hare
the same effect as if no misunderstanding between the two powers had intervened, except so
far as they may be cTerogated from by the present treaty.
"5th. there shall be a reciprocal stipulation for indemnities, and these indemnities shall be
limited to individuals, &c."
The first act of the envoys, after their declaration that the old treaties were iu
continued force, was an effort to purchase the two onerous articles thereof, viz : the
guarantee and the exclusive use of our ports : for the first they offered an annual war
subsidy of one million of francs ; and for the reduction of the use of our ports from
exclusive to that of the most favored nation, three millions. The French ministers
would accept, they said, a war subsidy of two millions annually, or a capital of ten
millions, for the extinguishment of the guarantee ; but as to the use of our ports,
no sum that could be named would induce them to accept of the slightest modifi
cation ; its full and exclusive effectual force was absolutely insisted on as an abiding
sine qua non to further proceedings. Our envoys then offered the whole spoliation
claims in exchange for the French claim to the old treaties, with a modification of
the right to use our ports from exclusive to that of the most favored nation ; but
the French ministers were inflexible — they would not submit to any relaxation or
modification of the right in any shape or degree whaterer.
The envoys were greatly embarrassed, since the use of our ports had been granted to
Great Britain by Mr. Jay's treaty, and she was then enjoying the same ; consequently
it was utterly impossible to yield to the exclusive use claimed by France, or even to
permit to France an equal participation. Their embarrassment was greatly increased
by the rapid and alarming progress of the quasi war, then fast running into a real war,
which it was seriously apprehended would speedily result. Confessedly to avoid such
an impending consequence, the envoys proposed to the French ministers on the 20th
August, 1800, to recognise the claims on both sides, viz : the claim of France to the
old treaties and the responsibilities incurred under them, and the claim of the United
States for the undisputed spoliation claims due to her citizens, and to consign these
claims respectively to a subsequent negotiation. That such an article in the pro
posed treaty, with another article providing for the restoration of public ships, an
other article providing for captured property not condemned, but in a state of se
questration, and another article providing for the payment by France of the
u debts " (for supplies, contracts, &c.) due to American citizens, would open the way
to a prompt reconciliation, and an easy arrangement by other articles in the pro
posed treaty for the future relations of the two governments.
The French ministers accepted the proposition, and corresponding articles were
incorporated into the treaty, and the negotiation closed by the signature of the
respective ministers to the convention of September 30, 1800, which was forthwith
ratified by Bonaparte, First Consul.
The second article of the convention contained the recognised claims of France
with respect to the old treaties and indemnity under them, and of the United
States for the spoliation claims of their citizens, and a pledge on both sides to dis
cuss and settle them at a convenient time, and nothing else ; and this time could
not exceed eight years, the duration of the convention being so limited afterwards
when ratified by the United States. The article is as follows:
"ART. 2. The ministers plenipotentiary of the two parties not being able to agree at present
respecting the treaty of alliance of 6th February, 1778, the treaty of amity and commerce of
the same date, and the convention of the 14th of November, 1788, nor upon the indemnities
mutually due or claimed, the parties will negotiate further on these subjects at a convenient
time ; and until they may have agreed upon these points, the said treaties and convention shall
have no operation, and the relations of the two countries shall be regulated as follows:"
ART. 3 provides for the restoration of captured public ships.
ART. 4 provides for the restoration of captured property not definitively condemned, or
which may be captured before the exchange of ratifications.
"ART. 5. The debts contracted by one of the two nations with individuals of the other, or
by the individuals of one with the individuals of the other, shall be paid, or the payment
may be prosecuted in the same manner as if there had been no misunderstanding between the
two States; but this clause shall not extend to indemnities claimed on account of captures or con
fiscations."
The other articles relate to the commerce and navigation between the two States
in future, and are not material to be here noticed.
The convention so framed, and bearing the ratification of the First Consul of the
French republic, was submitted to the Senate, who, on the 3d of February, 1801,
advised and consented that the convention be ratified, provided that the 2d article
be expunged, and that the duration of the convention be limited to eight years.
And being so modified, it was sent back to France for confirmation, without any
suggestion of the motive for expunging the 2d article. The chief object was to get
rid thereby of the old treaties: of this there can be no possible doubt; but being
without explanation, the act was susceptible of a two fold interpretation of the
intention, viz : an otter to offset the spoliation claims against and in discharge of
the old treaties, or to obtain a release from the old treaties, and yet hold France
liable for the spoliations, under the law of nations. That article was the only liga
ment that held the old treaties ; and if that was expunged by consent, then the
claim of France would thenceforward and forever be obliterated, and without any
equivalent ; but the effect would be wholly different on the spoliation claims,
because they were sustained by the law of nations. In fact, the spoliation claims
derived a very limited support from the old treaties, and would have been valid
claims against France if the treaties had never existed, since international law
would have fully sustained them.
That this was the view taken by the French government, is clearly manifested
in an official despatch from the French Minister of Foreign Relations (Talleyrand)
to M. Pichon, the French minister to the United States, dated Paris, August 4,
1801, in which he says :
" The government [of France] has preferred to terminate this debate in the manner the
most conformable to the interests and to the sentiments of the two nations. However, as, in
ratifying without explanation, the two governments would have found themselves in unequal
position relative to the pretensions expressed in the suppressed article; the suppression of this
article releasing the Americans from all pretensions on our part relative to ancient treaties,
and our silence respecting said article leaving us exposed to the whole weight of the eventual
demands on this government relative to indemnities, it has become necessary that a form be
introduced into the act of ratification, in order to express the sense in which the government
of the Republic understand and accepted the abolition of the suppressed article."
Accordingly, the French government ratified the convention, " with the addition
importing that the convention shall be in force for the space of eight years, and
with the retrenchment of the second article : provided, that, by this retrenchment,
the two States renounce the respective pretensions which are the object of the said
article."
President Jefferson submitted the convention, thus ratified on condition, to the
Senate on the 19th of December, 1801, who "resolved, that they considered the
said convention as fully ratified, and returned the same to the President for the
usual promulgation."
The condition thus prescribed by the First Consul, and accepted by the Senate
and President, (the treaty -making power,) at once put an end to the spoliation
claims as against France, and affixed the responsibility for them upon the United
States ; the latter having obtained from France, in a barter of their own seeking, a
satisfactory equivalent for them, for the benefit of the nation — a benefit of inesti
mable value, in the release from the old treaties.
It is manifest that the condition prescribed by the First Consul in his ratification
was the pivot on which the whole matter at issue turned. If that condition had
not been accepted by the United States, the convention could not have existed for
a moment; but it was accepted and confirmed, and thereby became the supreme
law of the land: therefore, said condition on the one part, and the acceptance
thereof on the other part, are not only as binding as if incorporated in the body of
the convention itself, but in fact the only acts that give to the convention any
vitality or validity whatever.
In reference to the matters just stated, President Pierce has ventured to express
in his veto message, in consecutive order, the following extraordinary declarations,
8
which T have placed in specific propositions, so that 1 may remark on them in the
like order :
" 1st. The obligations of the treaties of 1778, and the convention of 1788, were mutual, and
estimated to be equal.
" 2d. Rut however onerous they may have been to the United States, they had been abro
gated, and were not revived by the convention of 1800, but expressly spoken of as suspended
until an event which could only occur by the pleasure of the United States.
" 3d. It seems clear, then, that the United States were relieved of no obligations to France
by the retrenchment of the 2d article of the convention.
""4th. And if thereby France was relieved of any valid claims against her, the United
States received no consideration in return.
" 5th. And that, if private property was taken by the United States from their own citizens,
it was nit for public use.
"Gih. The correspondence of our ministers engaged in negotiations, both before and
after the convention of 1800, sufficiently proves how hopeless was the effort to obtain full
indemnity from France for injuries inflicted on our commerce from 1793 to 1800, unless it
should be by an account in which the rival pretensions of the two governments should each
be acknowledged, and the balance struck between them."
In answering the above propositions, I shall offer public documents as far as may
be, rather than my own remarks, because of the weight to which they are entitled.
To the first proposition, I answer, that, to say that the said obligations were mutual
and equal, is an evasion of the question at issue. Th'e question being wholly with
respect to the execution of these obligations, and particularly with respect to the
guarantee of the French islands and the use of our ports, on these two points I
shall now remark ; and first on the guarantee.
No one, to this day, has ever complained that France had failed to execute the
guarantee on her part with the utmost and even extravagant fidelity ; nor has any
one ever complained that she had violated the treaty of alliance in any particular.
But, on the other hand, France complained of the inexecution of the guarantee by
the United States ; and I venture the assertion that no man can be found so reck
less as to assert that we did execute it. In carrying into effect the guarantee of our
independence, France expended, in money, 1,440,000,000 of livres, (as computed
by Mr. Jefferson,) besides the blood of her citizens, ships-of-war, supplies of all
kinds, donations to us of large sums of money, loans of other sums, and endorsing
loans made to us by other powers, &c., &c., while the guarantee of the French
islands on our part has cost us nothing. And this the President states as "mutual,
and estimated to be equal"
On the 18th of September, 1793, the French minister addressed the following
complaint to our Secretary of State : "That the Secretary of War, to whom I com
municated the wish of our government of the Windward islands, to receive promptly
some fire arms and some cannon, which might put into a state of defence posses
sions guarantied by the United States, had the front to answer me, with an ironical
carelessness, that the principles established by the President did not permit him to
lend us so much as a pistol." And again, on the 14th November, 1793, the same
minister wrote to our Secretary of State : " I beg you to lay before the President
of the United States, as soon as possible, the decree and the enclosed note, and to
obtain from him the earliest decision, either as to the guarantee I have claimed the
fulfilment of for our colonies, or upon the mode of negotiation of the new treaty I
was charged to propose to the United States, and which would make of the two
nations but one family."* And again, on the llth of August, 1795, said minister's
successor wrote to our Secretary of State : " Besides, I will observe to you that my
government has ordered me to claim the literal execution of our treaties," &c.
And again, on the 15th November, 1796, the same minister thus wrote to our
Secretary of State:
* Mr. Jefferson to Mr. Madison, April 3, 1794: "As to the guarantee of the French islands,
whatever doubts may be entertained of the moment at which we ought to interpose, yet I
have no doubt but that we ought to interpose at a proper time, and declare both to England
and France that these islands are to rest with France, and that we will make a common cause
with the latter for that object."
9
between two people, the freest on earth."
The minister then protests against Mr. Jay^ treaty, and announces the suspension
of his functions near the United States ; adding :
« That the government of the United States and the American people are not to «g«d the
suspension of his functions as a rupture between France am tbe Unite d State but as a ma k
of just discontent, which is to last until the government of ^ UnM ftatci *«™^*%£
ments and to measures more conformable to the interests of the alliance, and
friendship between the two nations."
But all these demands to execute the guarantee were disregarded, as our gov
ernment had resolved not to execute it, on the ground that it would involve us m
the war in which France was on the defensive in contest against the combined
powers of Europe; and, accordingly, Mr. Monroe was instructed on his mission tc
France, on the 10th of June, 1794, to declare to France that "we are unable to
give her aids of men or money." ..
This plea of inability was a direct admission of obligation, and wholly unavai
ing in effect, since a subsequent pecuniary compensation, as damages might n
sonably be required by France, and could not with propriety be refused ; and such
was exactly what occurred during the negotiation that led to the convention of
1800 Whether, in this, France was right or wrong, it is not necessary to decide;
it is enouo-h to say that she set up a claim and pertinaciously maintained it, whicJ
it was our great aim to get rid of. It is certain that we considered the guarantee a
right in France, and of great value, as we had, in 1797, instructed our envoys to
offer to France an annual war subsidy of two hundred thousand dollars, in lieu of
an adequate force, perhaps our whole force, which the guarantee article required.
And it is proper to add, that, in consequence of our refusal or non-execution ot the
guarantee, all the French islands fell by capture, before the arms of Great Britain,
without the slightest remonstrance on the part of the United States. Whether we
were bound to redeem the islands and resume the guarantee "forever, need not be
remarked on. All that can be said of the guarantee is, that it was fully executed
by France, and not at all by the United States— and this the veto message
scribes as "mutual, and estimated to be equal.''1
With respect to the exclusive use of our ports by France, which was the real
point of difficulty in adjusting our affairs with France in 1800, its importance
requires that it should be well understood. It is notorious that she enjoyed that
right for several years, with our full assent, though against the earnest remon
strance of her enemy, Great Britain; and it is equally notorious that when
we deprived her of this admitted right, and gave it to her enemy, England under
Mr Jay's treaty, our whole country was convulsed by the act; which was the _ very
foundation of the two great political parties in the United States which exist to
this day. The Democratic party took the side with France, and the Federal party
the side with England. The right was nevertheless given to England, against U
violent protests of France. ,
The event thus described is too important to be hastily passed on ; I shall there
fore give official proof both of the right being in France, and of her being deprived
5 In' a letter from Mr. Jefferson, Secretary of State, to the British minister, dated
September 9, 1793, he says:
« And though the admission of the prizes and privateers of France is exclusive, yet it is the
effect of treaty made long ago for valuable considerations, not with a view to the present cir
cumstances, nor against any nation in particular, but all in general and may theretore be
faithfully observed without offence to any ; and we mean faith fully to observe iL
And, accordingly, France continued to use this acknowledged right, exclusively,
down to the summer of 1796— being three years of war between England and
France. The promulgation of Mr. Jay's ratifitd treaty was then announced, by
10
which it was found, on our own construction, that France was not only deprived of
this exclusive right, but that it was conferred on her then vindictive enemy, Eng
land.
It will scarcely be believed, at this day, that such an invasion of the rights of
France was contemplated by our government; but, in the instructions of our Sec
retary of State, Edmund Randolph, to Mr. Jay, dated May 6, 1794, after proposing
the terms of a treaty, and stating in ten sections the reciprocal items which should
compose it, the following section appears, viz: "11. You may discuss the sale of
prizes in our ports, while we are neutral ; and this, perhaps, may be added to the
considerations which we have to give, besides those of reciprocity"
This gross and palpable violation of our treaty of amity and commerce with
France, of 1778, in the midst of war, and taking from our ally her admitted and
most important right and giving it to her enemy, is one of those startling acts of
violence that can obtain credence only on irresistible proof — and that proof is here ;
viz: On the 15th of July, 1796, our Secretary of State, Mr. Pickering, reported to
the President as follows :
"Mr. Adet asks whether the President has caused orders to be given to prevent the sale of
prizes conducted into the ports of the United States by vessels of the Republic, or privateers
armed under its authority. On this I have the honor to inform you, that the 24th article of
the British treaty having explicitly forbidden the arming of privateers and the selling of their
prizes in the ports of the United States, the Secretary of the Treasury prepared, as a matter of
course, circular letters to the collectors to conform to the restrictions contained in that article,
as the law of the land. This was the more necessary, as formerly the collectors had been in
structed to admit to an entry and sale the prizes brought into our ports."
This is much worse than non execution of the treaty. The reciprocal right in
favor of the United States had been freely used by them in the ports of France
during our revolutionary war — and this, too, the veto message describes as " mu
tual, and estimated to be equal."
Another point on which France indignantly protested and complained, may be
stated in this connexion, viz :
By Mr. Jay's treaty, England was authorized to capture our provision vessels
bound to France — then threatened with famine, and assailed by Europe in arms,
for the avowed purpose of starving the French nation — on her paying ten per cent,
on the invoice cost of cargo ; flour being then, within the British market, about
eight dollars per barrel, and in Paris forty dollars and upwards. The treaty was
long held under advisement, and was not ratified till two years after its date, and
then only by the casting-vote of the presiding officer in each house of Congress.
During this delay, our Secretary of State wrote to Mr. Monroe, our minister at
Paris, dated July 14, 1795 :
"The treaty with England is not yet ratified by the President; nor will it be ratified, I
believe, until it returns from England, if then. * * * The late British order for seizing
provisions is a weighty obstacle to a ratification. I do not suppose that such an attempt to
starve France will be countenanced."
And Mr. Adams, our minister at London, on the 25th August, 1795, was in
structed to negotiate the exchange of the ratifications of Mr. Jay's treaty ; and
first to remonstrate against the British order to seize provisions bound to France.
The instructions state :
" Minute instructions cannot now be given concerning that order, as our accounts of it are
very imperfect. But if, after every prudent effort, you find that it cannot be removed, its
continuance is not to be an obstacle to the exchange of ratifications."
The provision order was not removed, the ratifications were exchanged, and the
British continued to capture provision vessels, but ceased to pay for their cargoes.
And this, too, the veto message describes as " mutual, and estimated to be equal"
The two acts just mentioned, stung the French government to madness ; it or
dered the ocean to be swept of American vessels ; charged our government with
being "perfidious," and by way of punishment, seized on American property, and
insulted our citizens, indiscriminately.
11
2d. Proceeding to the second proposition — the abrogation of the old treaties by
acts of Congress.
The principle that governs and settles this point is clearly laid down thus author
itatively in the " Federalist," page 405 :
"Others, though content that treaties should be made in the mode proposed, are averse to
their being the supreme law of the land. They insist, and profess to believe, that treaties, like
acts of assembly, should be repealable at pleasure. This idea seems to be new and peculiar to
this country ; but new errors, as well as new truths, often appear. These gentlemen would do
•well to reflect, that a treaty is only another name for a bargain ; and that it would be im
possible to find a nation who would make any bargain with us which should be binding on
them absolutely, but on us only so long and so far as we may think proper to be bound by it.
They who make laws may, without doubt, amend or repeal them; and it will not be disputed
that they who make treaties may alter or cancel them : but still let us not forget, that treaties
are made not by one only of the contracting parties, but by both; and consequently, that as
the consent of both was essential to their formation at first, so must it ever afterwards be to
alter or cancel them. The proposed constitution, therefore, has not in the least extended the
obligation of treaties. They are just as binding and just as far beyond the lawful reach of
legislative acts now, as they will be at any future period, or under any form of government."
France complained, with great force, that our act of Congress, which declared
the old treaties null and void, was of itself a direct violation of them, and she
held us accountable for it. If it could be admitted to be a valid act, still the pre
vious responsibilities incurred under the old treaties, by both parties, would cer
tainly not be annulled thereby. Great responsibilities had been incurred on both
sides prior to the date of that annulling act ; most of the spoliation by France, and
all of the alleged violation of the old treaties with her by the United States — in
cluding the non-execution of the guarantee, the shutting her off from the use of
our ports, and the contract permission to England to seize our provision vessels,
&c., &c. — had all occurred prior to that annulling enactment.
At an earlier period, France loudly complained of the President's proclamation
of neutrality of April 22, 1793, as a violation of the old treaties, as insidious in
character, and unfriendly in tendency.
President Washington laid a copy of the proclamation before Congress by mes
sage, in which he says:
" It seemed, therefore, to be my duty to admonish our citizens of the consequences of a
contraband trade, and of hostile acts to any of the parties; and to obtain, by a declaration of
the existing legal state of things, an easier admission of our right to the immunities belonging
to our situation. * * * Although I have not thought myself at liberty to forbid the
sale of the prizes, permitted by our treaty of commerce with France to be brought into our
ports, I have not refused to cause them to be restored when they were taken within the pro
tection of our territory," &c.
Mr. Madison in very strong terms denounced the proclamation in the newspapers
of the day. He said :
" Had he [the President] consulted his Vattel, instead of his animosity to France, he would
have discovered, that however humiliating it might be to wait for a foreign logic to assist the
interpretation of an act depending on the national authority alone, yet, in the case of a treaty,
which is as much the treaty of a foreign nation as it i& ours, and in which foreign duties and
rights are as much involved as ours, the sense of the treaty, though to be learnt from the
treaty itself, is to be equally learned by both parties to it. Neither of them can have a right
more than the other, to say what a particular article means ; and where there is equality with
out a judge, consultation is as consistent with dignity as it is conducive to harmony and friend
ship. Let Vattel, however, be heard on the subject: 'The third general maxim or principle
on the subject of interpretation of treaties is, that neither the one nor the other of the inter
ested or contracting powers has a right to interpret the act or treaty at its pleasure. For if
you are at liberty to give my promise what sense you please, you will have the power of
obliging me to do whatever you have a mind, contrary to my intention and beyond my
real engagement ; and, reciprocally, if I am allowed to explain my promises as I please, I may
render them vain and illusive by giving them a sense quite different from that in which they
were presented to you, and in which you must have taken them in accepting them.' "
It cannot, with truth, be affirmed, therefore, that the treaties were annulled by
our act of Congress ; nor were they annulled in any other mariner, until first sus
pended by the 2d article of the convention of 1800, and afterwards, by the consent
of the contracting parties, abrogated forever by the retrenchment of said article.
12
3d. Proceeding to the third proposition — that the United States were relieved
of no obligations to France by the retrenchment of the 2d article of the conven
tion of 1800.
It cannot be denied that we were under onerous treaty stipulations with France,
which large offers of money could not purchase — the guarantee, use of our ports,
&c. ; and it cannot be denied that we are now freed from them. How comes this
relief? It has been already proved that it could not be effected by our annulling
act of Congress of July 7, 1798; and especially that obligations at the date of the
convention of ] 800, and so recorded on its face, which our offer of large sums of
money had, in that year, failed to purchase, could not have been previously released
in July, 1798, the date of said act ; such an assertion would be absurd. Nor could
the release flow from war; since both 'parties declared they were not at war, and
settled the differences that had existed on that principle.
When the First Consul submitted the convention to the French Chambers for
ratification, it was referred to a commission of the body, who reported thereon the
facts and principles embraced in it ; and in respect to war they said :
" 'Twas getting past recovery ; war would have broken out between America and France,
if the Directory, changing its system, and following the counsels of prudence, had not opposed
moderation to the unmeasured conduct of the President of the United States."
And the instructions to our envoys to France of October 22, 1799, under which
the Convention of 1800 was concluded — and there certainly could not have been
war after that — contain the following, after stating our complaints against her :
" This conduct of the French Republic \vould well have justified an immediate declaration
of war on the part of the United States ; but desirous of maintaining peace, and still willing
to leave open the door of reconciliation with France, the United States contented themselves
with preparations for defence, and measures calculated to protect their commerce."
In adopting the defensive measures here referred to, we authorized the capture of
certain armed French vessels,* and recaptures from them. In one of the latter class,
on a question of salvage, it was decided by the Supreme Court that there was par
tial imperfect war as to that class of cases ; but the court did not decide or intimate
that there was a perfect or general war that would in any degree affect existing
treaties or claims.
The opponents of the French spoliation bill (including President Pierce's veto
message, by innuendo) heralded forth the decision in this salvage case as conclusive
of war with France, which would of itself defeat said spoliation bill; but without
reflecting that the Supreme Court cannot make war, either by declaration or de
cision, the constitution having conferred that power exclusively on Congress.
The attempt to establish war by this miserable salvage case, only shows the fee
bleness of those who resort to it ; for, if it were even admitted that there had been
actual and general war, that would have extinguished both the old treaties and the
spoliation claims. Still, those who rely on war to defeat these claims would not be
sustained by such admission; because the claims of both parties were recognised
and saved by the treaty of peace of 1800 — as they must improperly call the con
vention of that year, though not a treaty at all. It was merely a convention ; and
no one ever heard of a convention of peace ; and, besides, it was limited to a dura
tion of eight years, which would make it a truce only for that period, if war had
existed ; and at the expiration of the eight years, the war must have been resumed
or a treaty of peace then concluded — neither of which was either contemplated or
occurred. But the two governments uniformly and in the most decided terms
declared that there was no war between them at any time, and that they settled
the existing differences upon the principle of unbroken peace. It is, therefore,
wanton and fruitless untruth, to now assert that war impaired or affected the spolia
tion claims.
* Some of our zealous cruisers considered this authority extended to the capture of all
French vessels, and under that mistake captured eight French merchant ships; but our courts
promptly decreed their restoration to their owners, their capture being wholly illegal. If war
had existed, these vessels would have been good prizes.
13
Referring to my authorities in answer to the 4th proposition, I shall now proceed
to it, viz :
4th. That if France was released by said retrenchment of the obligation to sat
isfy the spoliation claims, the United States received no consideration in return.
If that were true, (which is not admitted,) the claims would not be affected in
juriously thereby, nor would it in the slightest degree lessen the obligation on the
United States to satisfy them.
On the 27th of August, 1793, the Secretary of State, Mr. Jefferson, by order of
President Washington, announced in the public newspapers the following offer of
agency in behalf of the spoliation claimants, with a correspondent pledge of the
government to account to them ; and this offer and pledge has never been modified
or repealed, or redeemed, viz :
"I have it in charge from the President to assure the merchants of the United States con
cerned in foreign commerce or navigation, that due attention will be paid to any injuries they
may suffer on the high seas, or in foreign countries, contary to the law of nations or to exist
ing treaties ; and that, on their forwarding hither well-authenticated evidence of the same,
proper proceedings will be adopted for their relief."
With implicit confidence in this direct and imposing overture, the sufferers by
French spoliations very generally hastened to the Department of State evidence of
their losses, and large masses of evidence thus collected within the following seven
years was from time to time forwarded to France by the department, without re
taining on its files any record thereof, and is thus in its possession to this day, and
wholly unaccounted for to the proprietors.
The unredeemed pledged faith of their government is all that remains of their
losses. The French government promptly admitted their claims, and even ratified
a convention for the ultimate satisfaction of them; but the United States, for their
own purpose, chose to release Franre from the obligation voluntarily, and now, with
the boldness of truth, allege that they "received no consideration in return."
If no consideration was had, then our government yielded them up to France aa
a donation without equivalent, and that would of itself have fixed the responsibil
ity to respond for them firmly on the United States ; but the fact is otherwise ; a
full and satisfactory consideration was obtained — one of our own seeking, and to
the whole extent demanded, to wit : a release of our government from the oner
ous treaties and responsibilities under them, as before stated; and it is neither just
nor honorable to set up a frivolous pretext, that is without a shadow of plausibility,
to defeat what the proper tribunal, Congress, has so repeatedly declared to be an
honest debt of the nation.
In a letter from our minister at Paris to the French Secretary of State, of April
17, 1802, he says:
"It will, sir, be well recollected by the distinguished character who had the management
of the negotiation that the payment for illegal captures, with damages and indemnities, was
demanded on one side, and the renewal of the treaties of 1*778 on the other; that they were
considered of equivalent value, and that they only formed the subject of the second article."
5th proposition — That if private property was taken by the United States from
their own citizens, it was not for public use.
What is this ? twenty millions of dollars in property taken from our citizens by
their government, and not for the public use! This inexplicable solecism is wholly
beyond my comprehension. If not taken for public use — the only justifiable reason
for taking it at all — for what purpose was it taken ? Whatever the answer to this
question may be, there is no hazard in saying, that the President can never con
vince the claimants that their property was or could be taken by their government
for any other purpose than the public use; and that when taken, which is admitted
on all sides, the obligation to pay for it is established by the imperative constitutional
command. It has been established, on the declaration of our Secretary of State,
that, up to 1799, the value of American property captured by the French amounted
to twenty millions of dollars. What has become of that property? It was con
fessedly in the hands of the French, but no longer there. Satisfaction was
14
demanded of France on the allegation that the claims were just and must be paid;
and our envoys in 1799 were instructed to inform France that we should require of
her, " as an indispensable condition of the treaty, a stipulation to make full com
pensation" for the identical vessels for which the vetoed bill made provision.
Napoleon, at St. Helena, in dictating the history of the convention of 1800, says :
" The suppression of this article [2d] at once put an end to the privileges which France had
possessed by the treaty of 17*78, and annulled the just claims which America might have made
for injuries done in time of peace. This was exactly what the First Consul had proposed to
himself in fixing these two points as equiponderating each other."
And such was precisely the understanding of the United States, from the proviso
of the First Consul in his conditional ratification of the convention with the 2d
article expunged, viz : In a letter from Mr. Madison to Mr. Livingston, of Decem
ber 18, 1801, he says:
« The convention with the French republic, as finally exchanged by Mr. Murray, arrived
here on the 9th of October last. As the form of ratification by the French government con
tained a clause declaratory of the effect given to the meaning of the treaty by the suppression
of the 2d article, &c., * * * I am authorized to say that the President [Mr. Jefferson]
does not regard the declaratory clause as more than a legitimate inference from the rejection
by the Senate of the 2d article, and that he is disposed to go on with the measures due under
the compact to the French republic."
The Senate accepted and confirmed said declaratory clause, and it thereby
became a part, and the most essential part, of the convention.
But the veto message has not only given a wholly different interpretation to this
confirmed act of the Senate, but has imputed odious and dishonorable motives to
those Senators who voted it, by charging them with a mental reservation that
should destroy its whole effect, in the language following :
"Now, it is clear that in simply resolving that they considered the convention as fully rati
fied, the Senate did, in fact, abstain from any express declaration of dissent or assent to the
construction put by the First Consul on the retrenchment of the 2d article. If any inference
beyond this can be" drawn from their resolution, it is that they regarded the proviso annexed
by the First Consul to his declaration of acceptance as foreign to the subject, as nugatory, or
as without consequence or effect. Notwithstanding this proviso, they considered the ratifica
tion as full."
There was nothing left for inference; the fact of concurrence and adoption of the
conditional ratification by the First Consul was complete, in the declaration of the
Senate, that "they considered the convention as fully ratified."
The veto message regards the limitation of the convention to eight years as
valid and binding ; but it could not be so without the declaratory clause of the First
Consul being accepted and confirmed by the Senate. And if that limitation be
valid, then the retrenchment of the 2d article, including the declaratory clause,
must necessarily be valid in toto. And as the two subjects — the French claims on
one side, and the spoliation claims on the other side — were indissolubly connected
in said declaratory clause, so they were both acquitted and discharged by ofket
against each other, by its adoption by the Senate. There is no escape from this
conclusion.
It' the proviso by the First Consul to his ratification " was nugatory, or foreign to
the subject, or without consequence or effect," why was it put there ? And after
being put there, why did President Jefferson hesitate to promulgate the convention
without the express action of the Senate ? And why did he consider it only a
legitimate inference from the rejection of the 2d article by the Senate ?
Mr. Madison, in his instructions to Mr. Charles Pinckney, our minister at Madrid,
says :
" The claims, again, from which France was released, were admitted by France, and the re
lease was for a valuable consideration in a correspondent release of the United States from certain
claims on them."
And Chief Justice Marshall, who was one of the envoys sent to France in 1797,
and afterwards was our Secretary of State, thus declared to the Hon. Wm. C.
Preston, John C. Calhoun, and the Hon. Mr. Leigh, as set forth in Mr. Preston's
15
letter of January 29, 1844, and read to the Senate by the Hon. John M. Clayton.
It says :
"Ha™* been connected with the events of thai ; period, and conversant _wirt i the circum
stances under which the claims arose, he was, from his own knowledge, satisfied tl at tbeK
was the strono-est obligation on the government to compensate the sufterers by the French spo-
^tions- and Mr Preston adds, 1 most heartily desire that the long-delayed and very made-
Ma^usttcTnow proposed to these unfortunate claimants will be made this session."
And Timothy Pickering's letter of November 19, 1824, was also read to the
Senate by Mr. Clayton, in which, speaking of the retrenchment of the 2d article
of the convention of 1800, he says :
"This implied a reciprocal abandonment of the old treaties, and the claims for depredations
up to 1 a time, September, 1800. Thus the government bartered the just claims ot our mer-
clCs oobtainaielinquishmentof the French claim for a restoration of the old treaties
UnecKllv the burdensome treaty of alliance, by which we were bound to guaranty the French
territories in America. On thU Yiew of tbe'caie, it would seem that the merchants have an
equitable claim for indemnities from the United States."
Mr. Pickering was our Secretary of State for many years, during which these
spoliations took place, and directed the negotiations connected with ihein.
If the First Consul and President Jefferson, who ratified the convention, and Mr.
Madison and Mr. Pickering, who, as Secretaries of State, conducted the negotiations
leadino- to it, and Chief Justice Marshall, one of the envoys to France to demand
compensation for these claims, are worthy of belief— which no man can doubt-
then it must be conceded that these claims were taken by the Imited States and
applied to the public use; and, consequently, that President Pierce is m error
asserting the contrary.
6th proposition— Objecting to a balance being struck between the two gov
ments, as a matter of principle.
A very brief remark on this will suffice— for it is the universal practice of all
governments; and no other mode of settling conflicting claims between govern
ments, or between individuals, has yet been discovered. And a striking example of
this practice is seen in the fact that President Pierce has just closed a commission,
appointed by himself, to adjust mutual claims existing between Great Britain and
the United States. . .
If a balance of national claims had been struck, as we had no national <
offset the national claim of France, there would be found an immense sum due to
France from the United States; but there would also be found a sum due Irorn
France for these spoliation claims to our citizens of probably twenty millions ot
dollars. , .
Our government chose to consider the French claims against it to be equa
value to twenty millions of dolla.s; and, without consulting the said individuals,
took their cestui que trust fund, then in its hands, and paid the national debt to
France ; and now, the President tells the claimants that their property was not
taken to the public use. He does not deny that their property was taken by the
government, but only equivocates by saying that it was not for the public use.
3 I have thus answered the six propositions, and, 1 trust, established that there
not one of them either tenable or plausible.
The numerous and gro^s errors in the message, which lead to a imsreprese
tion of the whole subject at issue, cannot fail to arrest the attention of every
reader of ordinary intelligence. Self-respect, and the respect to the high office he
holds, and respect to the judgment previously expressed of those to whom the
message is addressed, would certainly have induced the President to guard again:
such misrepresentation, if time and opportunity had served to examine the case
with ordinary care; doubtless, he has confided in the judgment of others, and has
in consequence been led astray. And having thus placed himself out of the pale
that high and commanding veneration which every citizen is always predisposed t
accord to our Chief Magistrate, and having thereby challenged the truth to come
forth, if it has aught to say against the faces and assumptions so adduced, it is pro
per and just that a response be made in terms that cannot be misunderstood.
16
But inasmuch as the preceding exposition has already covered several of the fal
lacies set forth in the message, and as the tortuous course adopted in their introduc
tion forbids them to be followed seriatim, it will suffice now to reply specifically to
the following passages, numbered 1 and 2, on which the message mainly relies :
1st. " It will be perceived by the language of the 2d article, as originally framed by the
negotiators, that they had found themselves unable to adjust the controversies on which years
of diplomacy and of hostilities had been expended ; and that they were at last compelled to
postpone the discussion of those questions to that most indefinite period, a ' convenient time.'
All, then, of these subjects, which was revived by the convention, was the right to renew, when
it should be convenient to the parties, a discussion which had already exhausted negotiation,
involved the two countries in a maritime war, and on which the parties had approached no
nearer to concurrence than they were when the controversy began."
It would have been more candid to have stated that there was no controversy
with respect to the spoliation claims. During the whole negotiation, from 1793
down to the signature of the convention of 1800, the French government uniformly
and constantly admitted its liability for the spoliation claims of our citizms; and
that liability embraced every case of capture of an American vessel, since, by the
treaty of 1778, no such capture could be legal even in the very strongest case of
carrying contraband goods to the enemies of France. A French cruiser was not
allowed to approach within cannon shot of an American vessel, nor to board her
by a boat with not exceeding three men, and then only to ascertain her national
character — so says the treaty.
The sole controversy, therefore, was with respect to the national claim of France
upon the government of the United States, for non-performance of the guarantee
in the treaty of alliance, and for violation of the treaty of amity and commerce,
in depriving France of the exclusive use of our ports, and giving that right to her
enemy, England, to specify no other matter ; and on this alone was the 2d article
of the convention of 1800 founded, and at the instance of the American ministers,
confessedly to avoid impending war, then nearly reached. As a guarantee to France
that her claim should be discussed, and satisfactorily adjusted thereafter, she
coupled with it the spoliation claims ; and these two subjects only were embraced
in, and proposed by the 2d article of the convention; but they were of totally dif
ferent character, the spoliation claim being without controversy, while the French
national claim alone was contested.
2d. " The obligations of the treaties of 1778 and the convention of 1788 were mutual, and esti
mated to be equal. But however onerous they may have been to the United States, they had
been abrogated, and were not revived by the convention of 1800, but expressly spoken of as
suspended until an event which could only occur by the pleasure of the United States. It
seems clear, then, that the United States were relieved of no obligation to France by the re
trenchment of the second article of the convention ; and if thereby France was relieved of
any valid claims against her, the United States received no consideration in return ; and that,
if private property was taken by the United States from their citizens, it was not for public
use."
That the obligations of the treaties of 1778 were mutual and equal in character
was never disputed by any one ; but that is not the matter at issue : were they mu
tually and equally performed, is the real question.
The obligations here referred to are — the guarantee of the French islands, and
the exclusive use of our ports ; the guarantee being " forever," and the other with
out limitation.
That France executed the guarantee on her part (and gave us the free use of her
ports) up to, and beyond the very spirit and letter of her engagement, is matter of
history. And it is unfortunately also matter of history, that the United States re
fused to execute the guarantee of the French islands; and that, although we freely
acknowledged the exclusive right, and permitted the use of our ports to France for
several years, yet, without consulting her, we suddenly deprived her of that right
and use, and gave them to her enemy, England, in the midst of the then existing
war between them. The non-performance on the part of the United States of these
two obligations, therefore, constituted a valid complaint by France, and a valid
claim to indemnity for the consequences. And thus, without any national claim
17
on the part of our government, and an enormous claim set forth by France, the
message decides them to be mutual, and estimated to be equal.
When the message states that the treaties had been abrogated, (by the act of
Congress of July 7, 1798,) "and were not revived by the convention of 1800, but
expressly spoken of as suspended," it follows, that, if suspended only in 1800, it is
absurd to say they had been abrogated years before. There is some method in
taking this absurd position; it was not accidental, but to avoid the admission of a
fact which would be fatal to the unsound conclusion immediately drawn from it,
viz: "that the United States were relieved of no obligation to France by the re
trenchment of the 2d article of the convention."
The President had just before admitted that the old treaties were merely sus
pended by said 2d article; and now he contends that they were abrogated by it,
making the terms suspended and abrogated synonymous.
The truth is, that our envoys were driven to the wall by the French sine que non,
not that the old treaties should be revived, but that they were not broken or im
paired by our act of Congress, or in any other manner; and our envoys were there
fore compelled, as of right, to admit the French imperative demand, that the unin
terrupted legal continuance of the old treaties should be fully acknowledged, and
they did so. And having thus yielded said admission, and their several efforts to
buy off the onerous articles — the guarantee and use of our ports — with large sums
of money, having failed, they proposed, as a last alternative, to consign the subject,
with said admission, to the 2d article of the convention ; to which the French
ministers assented by coupling with it the spoliation claims. The unavoidable ad
mission by our envoys was both true and legal ; because the treaty of alliance which
contained the guarantee had never been, in any respect, violated by France, nor, on
principle, could any treaty be annulled by a mere act of Congress; and especially
one like this, which, on its face, was to endure "forever?
It is not here assumed that the admission of our envoys did revive the old treat
ies ; but it is assumed that the continuous obligation of them was irresistibly and
absolutely maintained by France up to the conclusion of the convention ; whereby
she agreed not to cancel or annul them, but to merely suspend them, together with,
the indemnities claimed by her under them, for ulterior negotiation. And in that
shape the convention was ratified by the First Consul.
But if it were, for the sake of the argument, admitted that the old treaties were
abrogated, either by the act of Congress, or by their suspension in the convention
of 1800, the claim of France would not terminate there; "the indemnities mutu
ally due or claimed" still remained to be disposed of; those termed due being the
spoliation claims, and those termed claimed being those preferred by France for
non-performance arid violations of the old treaties, together with the political dam
ages resulting from them. From these, at least, the United States were released, if
it could be conceded that the old treaties were abrogated. But they were sus
pended merely, and the resumption of negotiation on them did not depend, as the
President alleges, on u an event which could only occur by the pleasure of the
United States," but rather by the pleasure of France, as her interest in such re
sumption soon became very evident ; for immediately after the convention was
definitively confirmed, a fierce war broke out between England and France which
lasted many years, the first effects of which were the capture of all the French
islands by the English. And France would doubtless have withdrawn said suspen
sion, and claimed the execution of the guarantee, (if nothing more,) if the old treat
ies had not been abrogated by the confirmed mutual retrenchment of the 2d article
of the convention; which act closed forever all claims to the old treaties and indem
nities, at the price of the spoliation claims of our citizens alone.
The errors in the veto message hereinbefore remarked on, are very small matters
compared with one I shall now cite, which scarcely bears the character of error,
viz:
2
18
" The zeal and diligence with which the claims of our citizens against France were prosecuted,
appear in the diplomatic correspondence of the three years next succeeding the convention of
1800; and the effect of these efforts is made manifest in the convention of 1803, in which pro
vision was made for payment of a class of cases, the consideration of which France had at all
previous periods refused to entertain, and which are of that very class which it has been often
assumed were released by striking out the second article of the convention of 1800."
It is not a little mortifying to be compelled to say, that the two facts thus set
forth are glaringly misstated ; just the reverse is the truth. France never refused
to entertain these claims ; nor does the convention of 3803 make provision for them,
r»r any one of the hundreds, probably thousands, of which the class consists. But
the inexcusable blunder does not stop even there ; the President has here again
Confounded torts with debts, and set out that the first were provided for by the con
vention of 1803 ; whereas, in fact, the torts were expressly excluded, and the debts
alone provided for by it. The torts had been bartered away to France three years
previously, to wit, in 1800 ; and there remained nothing to provide for by the con
vention of 1803 but the debts. And neither in the negotiation in 1803, nor in any
subsequent negotiation, has one word been said with respect to the tort claims so
bartered away through the 2d article of the convention of 1800. After such per
petual release of France, it would have been absurd and ridiculous in the claim
ants, and no less so by their government, to have expected from France to resume
an obligation to satisfy a class of claims for which she was fully released by reason
of an acknowledged satisfactory consideration, and without any reserve, three years
previously. Consequently, the convention of 1803 neither contemplated nor con
tained such a resumption ; it was nothing more than a supplement to the conven-
tion of 1800, which contained no such provision, but had for its sole object to carry
into effect the 4th and 5th unexecuted articles, viz: the 4th, with respect to "prop
erty captured and not yet definitively condemned, or which may be captured before
the exchange of ratifications;" and the 5th, to debts; this article closing with these
emphatic words: " But this clause shall not extend to indemnities claimed on ac
count of captures or confiscations"
The President has not overlooked the closing clause of the article I have just
cited and italicised, for he has quoted the very same words in his veto message ;
but it seems to have been mentally suppressed in his remarks, and apparently for
1 he purpose of avoiding self-conviction of entire refutation of his groundless deduc
tions.
The following brief summary may render the subject more clear, viz: The cap
tures which had been condemned were definitively closed by the ratification of the
convention of 1800, by which they were bartered away to France; whereas
the claims for captures not condemned, and the claims for debts due from France
to our citizens, were consigned to the convention of 1803 for adjustment and
payment.
The word "debts" was defined to embrace contracts, supplies, detentions by
embargoes, and prizes made at sea, in which the Council of Prizes had ordered
restitution, which, not being complied with in kind, were regarded as debts for
their sum of value.
The veto message proceeds thus :
" This is shown by reference to the preamble, and to the 4th and 5th articles of the conven
tion of 1803, by which were admitted, among the debts due by France to citizens of the United
States, the amounts chargeable for 'prizes made at sea, in which the appeal has been properly
lodged within the time mentioned in the said convention of 1800.' "
On this it need only be said, that the convention of 1800 does not contain one
word on the subject of appeal ; nor was a single case of that character provided for
in, or admitted under, the convention of 1803 :
The veto message proceeds thus :
"And this class was further defined to be only ' captures of which the Council of Prizes shall
have ordered restitution, it being well understood that the claimants cannot have recourse to
the United States otherwise than he might have had to the French republic; and only in case
or the insufficiency of the captors.' "
19
As the Council of Prizes did not come into existence until the 27th of March,
1800, and as the laws of France extended the right of appeal to only three months
from the original sentence, (in ordinary cases,) and as such original sentence was
founded on old laws of France, revived and enforced for the very purpose of effect
ing the certain condemnation of every captured American vessel, as before stated,
it necessarily followed that very few appeals were taken before March, 1800— the
great mass of captures were made before that date— since such appeals would not
only have been idle and fruitless, but made under heavy bond and security, and
attended with heavy costs, and thus only have increased the loss sustained by the
capture ; and such impressions were still operative on the captured after the erec
tion of the Council of Prizes, in which tribunal few placed any confidence. These
circumstances, and the period of three months having elapsed in nearly all the
cases lono- before March, 1800, the result was, that but a comparatively few cases
were brought before the Council of Prizes ; and the chief part of those which were
so acted on were definitively condemned by it. And all those captures, probably
much exceeding one thousand in number, which were not brought before the
Council of Prizes, were held to be definitively condemned ; and this is the class of
cases which were embraced in the 2d article of the convention of 1800, and subse
quently bartered away to France by our government by the ratifications thereof.
It is understood that the Council of Piizes ordered the restitution of but sixteen
of our captured vessels. These constituted debts ; and very few of them (six only)
were allowed by the board acting under the convention of 1803.
As before stated, in cases of restitution ordered, and not complied with, such
were regarded as debts, and therefore were embraced in the provisions of the con
vention of 1803 ; and for the payment of these and of other debts so provided for,^
the French government placed in the hands of the United States twenty millions of
francs (being so much of eighty millions of the purchase money for the territory of
Louisiana) to cover said debts, which were to be discharged, principal and interest
from their date, through an American board setting at Paris, whose awards were to
be paid as fast as liquidated by drafts of the American minister at Paris on the
Treasury of the United States.
It is clear, therefore, that the words in the article referred to, " shall not have
recourse to the United States," means, shall not partake of the fund of ^ twenty
millions of francs. It must not be overlooked that France was here paying her
own debts, and for that reason was allowed by the terms of the convention of 1803
a supervisory decision on each and all of them. She was therefore determined to
make that fund cover as much debt as possible, and with that view she (perhaps
surreptitiously) introduced the clause in the convention of 1803 making certain
debts, those in ordered restitution cases, to be due by her " only in case of the
insufficiency of the captors ;" thus compelling the claimants to first look ^ to the
captors for satisfaction. This was both unjust and unfortunate for the claimants,
as the captors could not be found, and as the one year limited to the board was too
short to search for them through the French colonies. There were sixteen cases of
this description, of which the board awarded in favor of six of them ; ^the remaining
ten cases never received to this day any compensation whatever. Said board made
awards of principal and interest to the whole amount of twenty millions of francs,
and at that point closed the commission, leaving wholly unsatisfied a number of
debts, amounting, with said ten cases, to the sum of one million four hundred and
eighty-eight thousand eight hundred and thirty-three dollars, as stated in the
instructions of Mr. Van Buren, Secretary of State, to Mr. Rives, of July 20,
1829, (see Appendix F,) not one cent of which has yet been paid. For these pre-
termitted claims the United States are clearly liable, however, because our ministers,
who negotiated the convention of 1803, officially admitted to our government, that,
for the sum of twenty millions of francs, they had agreed that the United States
should pay all the debts, and that, believing the claims would not exceed six
teen millions, they had obtained the acknowledgment of France that the excess
should inure to the United States ; and on that event they felicitate themselves
20
and their government on so advantageous a bargain. But it was soon thereafter
discovered that the debts would greatly exceed twenty millions ; whereupon our
minister contended that France should pay the excess. But the French minister
decided definitively, "The convention of 1803 foresaw the whole case; the whole
of the American claims are to be placed to the account of the Federal government."
And one of our ministers, (Mr. Livingston,) in communicating this result to our
government, in his letter of 14th September, 1804, says :
" It would be candid to own, that, in one of the drafts which was substantially agreed to,
we justified the construction the [French] minister has put upon the treaty. This article was,
in rewording the convention, struck out without attention by Mr. Marbois ; and as we saw
the advantage it might give us, was not observed on by Mr. Monroe and myself till he had
left us ; and, indeed, it seems to be almost too sharp to say we were to gain if the debts fell
short, but not lose if they exceeded."
In fact the convention of 1803 is full of blundtrs, which Mr. Livingston ac
counts for thus, in the letter to our Secretary of State of May 3, 1804 :
" The fact was, I had drawn the convention with particular attention ; it did not exactly
meet Mr. Monroe's ideas, to whom the subject was new. It produced isome modifications; and
these again, which would have fully answered our purpose, were struck out by Mr. Marbois'
wish to give a preference to debts that had a certain degree of priority in the French bureaus.
The moment was critical; the question of peace or war (between England and France) was
in the balance, and it was important to come to a conclusion before either scale preponderated.
I considered the convention as a trifle compared to the other great object, [the purchase of
Louisiana;] and as it had already delayed us many days, I was ready to take it under any
form, being persuaded that the intention was fully declared, and that the interest of both
nations concurred with the justice due to individuals in giving it a liberal construction."
That, in a hasty and imperfect examination of a subject so wide-spread, the
President should fall into some errors, might naturally be expected and excused ;
but it was neither expected nor can be excused that he should so shape the facts
in the ca«e as to cover the conclusions and assumptions he has ventured to assert ;
and these are freely set out on every page of his veto message, some few of which
I have hereinbefore remarked on, while the mass of others have been passed over
from lack of space, having already extended the review beyond readable limit.
There is, however, one great and inexcusable error in the message, which, if true,
would be what is evidently but unfairly designed it should be, a death-blow to these
claims. Its manifest absurdity seems to have been overlooked in the hot haste to
annihilate the claims by a bold but unfounded assertion, to wit : that notwith
standing these claims were bartered away and final discharge given to France by the
convention of 1800, they weie nevertheless revived, acknowledged and paid, under
the convention of 1803. And to this absuidity the President has added another
equally glaring, to wit : that, although the spoliation claims amounted to twenty
millions of dollars, and the debt-claims to twenty millions of francs in aJdition,
yet both these sums were paid and forever discharged with twenty millions of
francs only. That I may do the President no injustice in this, I will cite the words
of his message, viz :
"As to claims of citizens of the United States against France, which had been the subject
of controversy between the two countries prior to the signature of the convention of 1800, and
the further consideration of which was reserved for a more convenient time by the second
article of that convention— for these claims, and these only, provision was made in the treaties
of 1803, all other claims being expressly excluded by them from their scope and purview."
In tnis declaration the President has placed himself in an inextricable dilemma,
for if, as he says, the claims were thus paid, then he admits that they ought to have
been paid : and when it shall be clearly proved (as shall be done presently) that
the claims were not thus or in any other manner paid, his admission stands that
they ought to have been paid, and consequently ought now to be paid.
The declaration of the President above cited fully confirms my former remark,
that he has confounded torts with debts • and that unfortunate error runs through
the whole message, arid renders it not only obscure, but incongruous and unintelli
gible. That declaration, besides, reverses the whole order of facts, and for proper
correction, should be thus modified :
21
As the claims of citizens of the United States against France, which had
been the subject of negotiation between the two countries prior to the signature of
the convention of 1800, and the further consideration of which was reserved for a
more convenient time by the second article of the convention — that class of claims
being spoliations exclusively — were definitively settled through the final ratifications
of said convention, by which they were bartered to France in set- off against her
claim upon the United States, under the treaties of 1778, and never thereafter
brought forward or discussed by either party. And the claims which were provided
for by the supplementary convention of 1803, were those exclusively which were
reserved as against France by the 4th and 5th articles of the convention of 1800,
viz : for captured property not condemned, and for debts due to our citizens.
Now in order to place the President altogether in the wrong, it only becomes
necessary to show that not one of the spoliation claims embraced by the second
article of the convention of 1800 was allowed by the board of commissioners or
otherwise paid under the convention of 1803, or in any other manner; and this is
clearly established by the copy of an official report of said board, which states the
names of the vessels embargoed, and of those that furnished supplies, the names of
their owners in whose favor awards were made, and on what account such awards
were declared ; and in like manner a detailed description of the claims which were
rejected by the board, by which it will appear that of the sixteen prize cases in
which restitution was ordered by the council of pri^s, six were allowed, two re
jected, and eight not brought forward ; and that only twenty-four cases of capture
(without order of restitution,) being part of more than one thousand cases of cap
ture embraced in the second article of the convention of 1800, were submitted to
said board, and in every instance rejected. (Appendix A, and explanatory corres
pondence, B and C.)
It is not matter of surprise that so few cases of this latter class were submitted
to the board, since the 4th article thus emphatically excluded them : "But this
clause shall not extend to indemnities claimed on account of capture or confisca
tions."
The following statement will exhibit the number of captures embraced by the
2d article of the convention of 1800 :
A list of vessels made up with care, and from every source within the collection of the past
thirty-four years, and embracing —
1st. Vessels captured by the French ;
2d. Vessels captured by the French and Spaniards in conjunction;
3d. Vessels engaged in furnishing supplies to the French ;
4th. Vessels detained at Bordeaux by embargo —
Make together an aggregate of vessels 2,290
Subject to the following deductions :
1st. Vessels paid for by special laws of France 14
2d. Vessels paid for under the convention of 1803 —
For embargoes 103
For contracts 2TO
For prize causes under order of restitution 6
— 379
3d. Vessels rejected under convention of 1803 —
For contracts or supplies 102
For prize causes 26
128
4th. Vessels paid for under Florida treaty 1T3
5th. Vessels rejected under do. 191
6th. Vessels paid for under the convention with France of 1831, being for cap
tures made by the French between the date of signature and the ratifi
cation of the convention of 1800 4
889
Vessels outstanding 1,401
22
Brought forward 1,401
From these 1.401 vessels should be deducted the like proportion of rejected cases as
above, and thereby cover every contingency, including loss of proof, &c., &c.
128
191
Thus 889 : 319 :: 1,401 503
898
Leaves 898 vessels to be accounted for, being those bartered away to France under the con
vention of 1800, and for which the vetoed bill provided.
These 898 vessels valued by estimate at $14,000 each, make an aggregate of
twelve million five hundred and seventy-two thousand dollars — that sum being the
consideration given to France, of the claimants' property, in discharge of the claim
of France against the United States, under the treaties of 1778. Consequently,
a like amount was due to the claimants, for their property so taken and applied to
the public use, at the date of the final ratification of the convention, of September
30, 1800, to wit: on the 21st of December, 1801 ; and the total amount thereof
remains unpaid to this day.
In addition to the 898 captured vessels, above mentioned, for which France was
held liable until released by the United States, as before explained, she had cap
tured many other of our vessels ; in which wrong Spain had participated by the use
of her ports and by profit of the prizes — and for these Spain alone was held liable
by the United States, to whom she made satisfaction, in the cession of the Floridas.
(See Appendix D )
Immediately after the promulgation of convention of 1800, a considerable number
of the claimants presented memorials to Congress, from Baltimore ; Philadelphia ;
Alexandria ; New York ; Port Royal, Virginia ; Washington, North Carolina ;
Charleston, South Carolina; Hartiord, Connecticut; New London, Connecticut;
Portsmouth, New Hampshire; Norfolk, Virginia; Salem, Massachusetts; Nan-
tucket; Portland, Maine; Newburyport, Massachusetts; Essex County, Virginia;
and others. These memorials were referred to a committee, composed of Mr. Giles,
Mr. Eustes, Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Lowndes, Mr. Milledge, Mr. Tallmadge, Mr. Robert
Wilson, Mr. Davis, and Mr. Gregg. Before that committee reported, a considerable
debate took place on the subject of the claims, and propositions to satisfy them,*
during which no one expressed the least doubt of the obligation on our govern
ment to pay them ; and it was urged " that these claims were the more just as
the government of the United States had received an ample remuneration tor any
demands which it might satisfy, in the abandonment on the part of the French
government of our previous guarantee of the French West India possessions."
* From the journal of the House of Representatives, January 31, 1803 :
" On motion made and seconded that the House do come to the following resolution :
" Resolved, That provision ought to be made by law to indemnify the citizens of the United
States, who, in carrying on a lawful trade to foreign parts, suffered losses by the seizure of
their property, made by unauthorized French cruisers, or by any French cruisers, without
sufficient cause, in violation of the rights of American commerce, during the late war between
Great Britain and the French republic, and whose claims for indemnity against the said
republic were renounced by the United States by their acceptance of the ratification of the
treaty lately made with France" —
Said resolution was postponed for two days, when a motion was made to take it up for con
sideration ; when,
" It was resolved in the affirmative — yeas sixty-five, nays twenty-six.
" Another motion was then made ; and the question being put that the said motion be
referred to the consideration of a Committee of the Whole House, it was resolved in the affirm
ative.
" Another motion was then made; and the question being put that the same be the order of
the day for Tuesday, the 1st of March next, it passed in the negative — yeas 18, nays 74.
" Resolved, That the said motion be the order of the day for Monday, the 14th instant."
On the 26th February, 1803, on a motion that the House of Representatives resolve
23
Unfortunately for the claimants, the repeal of the internal taxes was then the
order of the day, a measure to which the then dominant party and their Chief, Mr.
Jefferson, who had just been elected President, stood specially pledged before the,
country — and to that popular measure alone may be ascribed the postponement of
the discussion referred to. The subject was subsequently resumed by Congress :
the proceedings and result thereof appear in the debate as published at the time,
taken from the National Intelligencer, and will be found in Appendix E.
The internal taxes were accordingly repealed; and thus Congress parted with
the means to satisfy these claims: and, for that reason, although a favorable report
was made on them, and no adverse vote had thereon, they were postponed from
time to time, on refusals to take up for consideration motions in their favor.
On the 26th of December, 1806, the subject was again referred by Congress to
a committee of Messrs. Marion, Eppes, Clinton, Tallmadge, Cutts, Dickson, Blunt
Findley, and Tenny — whose report contains the following :
"From a mature consideration of the subject, and from the best judgment your committee
have been able to form of the case, they are of opinion that this government, by expunging
the 2d article of our convention with France of the 30th September, 1800, became bound to
indemnify the memorialists for their just claims, which they otherwise would rightfully have
had on the government of France for the spoliations committed on their commerce by the
illegal captures made by the cruisers, and other armed vessels of that power, in violation of
the law of nations, and in breach of treaties then existing between the two nations; which
claims they were, by the rejection of the said article of the convention, forever barred front
preferring to the government of France for compensation."
On the 5th of March, 1824, the Senate, by resolution, requested the President to lav
before that body the correspondence between the two governments on the subject :
" Also, how far, if at all, the claim of indemnity from the government of France for the
spoliations aforesaid was affected by the convention entered into between the United States and
France, on the said 30th of September, 1800."
This call resulted in bringing first to light the whole correspondence of the
several negotiations with France in relation to the spoliation claims, extending
through the entire period from 1792 down to the final ratification of the conven
tion of 1803; which was printed, by order of the Senate, in a large octavo volume
of 840 pages ; and is now the 5th volume of Senate documents of the first ses
sion of the 19th Congress. These important documents were transmitted to the
Senate by message of President John Q. Adams, accompanied by a lucid report of
Mr. Clay, Secretary of State, which was adopted and confirmed by the President.
The distinguished ability and integrity of these justly exalted functionaries were
safe guarantees that their action in the matter would establish a confidence in their
report not to be shaken; nor has any one to this day raised the slightest doubt of
the facts it sets forth, or the conclusions founded on them. But, on the contrary,
those who opposed the claims set up their own vague and unfounded inferences,
passing by, without notice, this unanswerable document ; not one of them having
ever recognised in argument its existence. I feel justified in giving an extensive
extract from it, as follows :
"The closing paragraph of the resolution of the Senate enjoins another duty, which, from
the ambiguous manner in which it is expressed, the Secretary feels some difficulty in clearly
comprehending. The Senate resolved, ' that the President of the United States be requested
to cause to be laid before the Senate, copies,' &c., and concludes by requesting to cause also to
be laid before the Senate, ' how far, if at all, the claim of indemnity from the government of
France for the spoliations aforesaid was affected by the convention entered into between the
United States and France, on the 30th of September, 1800,'
" The Secretary can hardly suppose it to have been the intention of the resolution to require
the expression of an argumentative opinion as to the degree of responsibility to the American
sufferers from French spoliations, which the convention of 1800 extinguised on the part of
France, or devolved on the United States, the Senate itself being most competent to decide that
itself into a Committee of the Whole on the above motion, it passed in the negative — yeas 21,
nays 48.
This strange result, after the large favorable vote, as above shown, -was evidently produced
by the repeal of the internal taxes, and the party determination to support the President in
that leading popular measure.
24
question. Under this impression be hopes that he will have sufficiently conformed to the pur
poses of the Senate, by a brief statement, prepared in a hurried moment, of what he under
stands to be the question.
" The second article of the convention of 1800 was in the following words : ' The ministers
plenipotentiary of the two parties not being able to agree at present respecting the treaty of
alliance of 6th February, 1778, the treaty of amity and commerce of the same date, and the
convention of 14th November, 1788, nor upon the indemnities mutually due or claimed, the
parties will negotiate further on these subjects at a convenient time ; and until they may have
agreed upon these points, the said treaties and convention shall have no operation, and the
relations of the two countries shall be regulated as follows :r
" When the convention was laid before the Senate, it gave its consent and advice that it
should be ratified, provided the second article be expunged, and that the following article be
added or inserted : ' It is agreed that the present convention shall be in force for the term of
eight years from the time of the exchange of the ratifications;' and it was accordingly so ratified
by the President of the United States on the 18th day of February, 1801, and on the 33st of
July, of the same year, it was ratified by Bonaparte, First Consul of the French Republic, who
incorporated in the instrument of his ratification the following clause, as a part of it: ' The
government of the United States having added to its ratification that the convention should
be in force for the space of eight years, and having omitted the second article, the government
of the French Republic consents to accept, ratify, and confirm the above convention, with the
addition importing that the convention shall be in force for the space of eight years, and with
the retrenchment of the second article : provider/ that, by this retrenchment, the two Slates renounce
the respective pretensions which are the object of the said article.'
" The French ratification being thus conditional, was nevertheless exchanged against that of
the United States, at Paris, on the same 31st July. The President of the United States con
sidering it necessary again to submit the convention, in this state, to the Senate, on the 19th
day of December, 1801 it was resolved by the Senate, that they considered said convention as
fully ratified, and returned it to the President for the usual promulgation. It was accordingly-
promulgated, and thereafter regarded as a valid and binding compact.
" The two contracting parties thus agreed, by the retrenchment of the second article, mutually
to renounce the respective pretensions which were the object of that article. The pretensions
of the United States, to which allusion is thus made, arose out of the spoliations, under color
of French authority, in contravention of law and existing treaties. Those of France sprung
from the treaty of alliance of the 6th of February, 1778, the treaty of amity and commerce
of the same date, and the convention of the 14th November, 1788, Whatever obligations or
indemnities from those sources either party had a right to demand, were respectively waived
and abandoned, and the consideration which induced one party to renounce his pretensions,
was that of the renunciation by the other party of his pretensions. What was the value of the
obligations so reciprocally renounced, can only be matter of speculation.
"The amount of the indemnities due to citizens of the United States was very large ; and
on the other hand, the obligation was great, (to specify no other French pretensions,) under
which the United States were placed in the llth article of the treaty of alliance of 6th Feb
ruary, 1778, by which they were bound forever to guaranty from that time the then posses
sions of the crown of France in America, as well as those which it might acquire by the future
treaty of peace with Great Britain ; all these possessions having been, it is believed, conquered
at or' not long after the exchange of the ratifications oi the convention of September, 1800, by
the arms of Great Britain, from France.
" The fifth article of the amendments to the constitution provides, ' nor shall private property
be taken for public use without just compensation.' If the indemnities to which citizens of
the United Stases were entitled for French spoliations prior to the 30th of September, 1800,
have been appropriated to absolve the United States from the fulfilment of an obligation which
they had contracted, or from the payment of indemnities which they were bound to make to
France, the Senate is most competent to determine how far such an appropriation is a public
use of private property within the spirit of the constitution, and whether equitable consid
erations do not require some compensation to be made to the claimants."
This report, and accompanying documents, brought from the secret archives of
the State Department, where they had slept for a quarter of a century without
notice of our government, or even knowledge of the claimants, unfolded what had
theretofore remained a mystery, but now a flood of light. It disclosed that the
treaty- making power had released France from her responsibility for these claims,
for the benefit of the nation ; and that fact induced the claimants to memorialize
the Senate primarily, considering it essential that the Senate should lead the way
to their relief; being best qualified to determine two essential facts: first, that the
Senate had bartered their claims to France ; and, second, that the United States
had assumed the responsibility to pay them. The action of the Senate was there
fore invoked, and the claimants are bound to gratefully acknowledge the justice
with which their applications have been regarded, by voting bills for their partial
relief seven different times — two of which were also voted by the House of Repre-
25
sentatives and submitted to the President for approval, but were in both instances
vetoed.
Since this published correspondence, thirty-two reports in favor of the claims have
been made in the two houses of Congress, by committees of the highest grade, and
not one adverse report; and it is a remarkable fact, that whenever either House
was brought to a vote on the subject, it has uniformly resulted in favor of the
claimants ; and it is also an imposing and remarkable fact, that said published cor
respondence induced the legislatures of fourteen States, respectively, to pass reso
lutions instructing their Senators and requesting their Representatives in Congress
to vote for the relief of the sufferers.
Under such circumstances, added to the clear merits of the claims, and more
than fifty years expended in their most searching investigation by eight successive
Senates and twenty-five Houses of Representatives, with no new fact found to their
prejudice, it might be naturally concluded that all opposition ought and would
cease; and' that any attempt even to raise a doubt should be regarded as a fore
gone conclusion — the emanation of an unsound mind.
Our government held the depredations of the French as robbery, but do not
appear to reflect that it remains a robbery, and does not change that character in
whatever hands the property may be found, nor until the property be restored to
the rightful owners.
The claimants are in pursuit of stolen goods, and trace them into the possession
of their own government; shall it be said they will not restore them? Who shall
say so ? Will the President, the sworn protector of the claimants, be the leader of
such an act ?
Shall the decided will of Congress, to whom the constitution has commanded the
duty of "paying the debts of the nation," and who have under their constitutional
responsibility declared this sacred debt shall be paid, be arbitrarily overruled, their
authority treated with contempt and annihilation, by a heartless and unfounded
tissue of a >surdities and abstractions manifesting nothing but deep rooted hostility,
and cunningly arranged assumptions, that render the denunciation wholly unintelli
gible ?
Why, France, the robber, exhibited some sympathy for the sufferers, by actually
paying some of them voluntarily, and promising to pay all; and, during the dis
cussions immediately preceding the signature to the convention of 1800, proposed
again and again a direct stipulation for their satisfaction. But the United States,
who had promised the proprietors protection, and taken in charge the evidence of
their losses with that view, and gave a solemn pledge to pursue and account for
their claims, stepped in and sold the claims for its own benefit, locked up the
evidence of the sale for more than twenty years, and then tells the claimants:
first, that the claims are worthless; second, that they were not sold; third, that
they were paid; and now, that they are fraudulent; and by implication charge
those who voted the bill under consideration as participants in the fraud. They
are yet living, however, and will, at no distant day, have an available opportunity
to defend themselves. But the veto message has done worse than that ; it holds
out that the Senate of 1801, who voted in favor of the condition prescribed by the
First Consul to his ratification of the convention of 1800, did so with a mental
reservation that that condition should be regarded by them as null and void, and
have no effect. At such a charge the calumniator should fear the rising of the
venerable dead in their defence.
By charging others with such an act, the chalice may fairly be returned to his
own lips. But no one will believe that the universally respected objects of this
most ungracious and uncalled for denunciation were capable of such an outrage
on all propriety. If the President should hold it to be true, however, which no
sound mind could do, still it would not justify him in adopting it for the purpose
of defeating these claims; but in common honesty he should regard it as the
supreme law of the land, and apply it still to the benefit of the claimants.
The claimants lost their twelve to twenty millions of dollars by the violent acts
26
of the French, and yet not one word of sympathy has found its way to the veto
message ; but, on the contrary, the robber, France, is complimented for the fidelity
with which she has discharged her obligations — and the United States also, for
having completely discharged its duty. The compliments are thus expressed :
" This review of the successive treaties between France and the United States has brought
my mind to the undoubting conviction that while the United States have, in the most ample
and the corapletest manner, discharged their duty toward such of their citizens as may
have been at any time aggrieved by acts of the French government, so, also, France has hon
orably discharged herself of all obligations in the premises towards the United States."
Well, say the claimants in answer, Mr. President, you have made out to your
own satisfaction that both governments have acted very honorably in the premises,
but that is not the object of our inquiry ; we desire to know what has become of
our 898 vessels, our property, worth more than twelve millions of dollars. Be
pleased to tell us.
The President infers hostility to the claims, and want of merit in them, from the
circumstance that none of his predecessors had thought them worthy of being rec
ommended to Congress.
A sufficient answer to this far-fetched objection would be, that it is neither the
duty nor the practice of the Executive to take such action on private claims ; and,
besides, it would be received with disfavor, and regarded as usurpation.
But, if the President really meant to convey what this objection implies, how
does it happen that he has not in a single instance so recommended a private claim ?
Many hundreds of such claims have been constantly pending since his elevation to the
office, and yet he has not noticed any one of them ; it' his inference is entitled
to any respect, then he is hostile to all of them. He could not. if he would, deter
mine the merits of private claims, for that or any other purpose, as it would re
quire research, cross-examination, and much time, which his ordinary and impera
tive duties would not permit.
When these claims were pending in Congress during the administration of Gen
eral Jackson, and when the public debt was discharged, he was importuned to no
tice these claims favorably by message, on the ground that the current revenue being
free from the public debt, would accumulate, and thus furnish adequate means to
discharge this sacred debt of the nation. He asked why his predecessors did not
so recommend them ? and was answered that there was good reason for their si
lence, viz : that when the obligation arose, in 1801, the government funds were too
low ; the war with England followed and greatly increased the public debt ; and
then the sinking fund system was adopted, by which the whole surplus revenue be
yond the current and indispensable expenditure was pledged to the discharge of the
public debt; so that no money remained that could be applied to this object until
the revenue should be released from the funded debt, whicu was then accomplished.
He said such was indeed the case ; but, said he, the subject is before the proper tri
bunal, Congress, and it would be altogether improper for him to interfere; adding, he
might sign a bill for the relief of the claimants, but could take no steps to obtain
one. On a subsequent occasion a deputation from a convention held in New York
waited on President Jackson with a similar request to that just mentioned ; to which
he replied, Why, gentlemen, I can kill your case as I killed Mrs. Decatur's case, by
recommending it to Congress. Do you not see that if I should do so, every politi
cal opponent I have there will at once be opposed to your claims ? do you wish
that ? The deputation was at once satisfied of the impolicy and impropriety of
their request, and forthwith withdrew it.
While the French were thus depredating on 'our commerce, England, for several
years piior to 1796, committed like depredations, for which she made compensa
tion, however, under Mr. Jay's treaty, to the amount of ten million three hundred
and forty-five thousand dollars. And again, under the treaty of 1814, for negroes
and other property, one million four hundred and ninety-seven thousand dollars.
France, also, for like depredations on our commerce prior to the year 1800, made
compensation to the government of the United States in political considerations
27
satisfactory to them, under the convention of that year, amounting in 1799, as es
timated by our ministers, at fifteen to twenty millions of dollars ; but the United
States having failed to pay over this indemnity to the claimants, their right to
claim, and the obligation on the United States to pay, has become the matter now
under consideration. France, also, for debts contracted with our citizens prior to
1800, made satisfaction for them, under the convention of 1803, to the amount of
twenty millions of francs — equal to three million seven hundred and fifty thousand
dollars; and a further undefined amount merged in the acquisition of Louisiana.
And again, under the convention of 1831, for depredations, made satisfaction to
the amount of twenty -five millions of francs.
Spain, also, for depredations prior to 1795, made compensation under the treaty
of that year, to the amount of three hundred and twenty-five thousand dollars.
And again, for like depredations, under the treaty of 1819, to the amount of five
millions of dollars, and a further undefined amount merged in tie acquisition of
the Floridas. And again, for further depredations, under the treaty of 1834, to
the amount of six hundred thousand dollars.
Denmark, also, for depredations, made compensation under the treaty of 1830,
to the amount of six hundred and thirty thousand dollars.
Naples, also, for depredations, made compensation under the treaty of 1832, to
the amount of one million nine hundred and twenty-five thousand dollars.
Mexico, also, for depredations, under the convention of 1839, marie compensa
tion to the amount of two million and twenty six thousand dollars; and again,
under the treaty of 1848, to the amount of three and a quarter millions of dollars.
Peru, for depredations on our commerce, under the treaty of 1841, three hundred
thousand dollars. Besides, from Holland, Portugal, Chili, <fec., &c.
It thus appears that all the foreign governments that depredated on our com
merce have made satisfaction ; and that our own government is now the only one
in default, and that in the most ancient and most obligatory case of them all ; in
which the United States accepted public political considerations of inestimable
value, in payment ; but these being in their nature neither transferable nor divisible,
could not, therefore, be paid over in kind : our government has taken advantage of
that circumstance down to this time, by not giving to the individual claimants
either an equivalent or any part thereof, but retains the whole to the public u^e.
That the sufferers from these violent acts of France had the warm sympathy of
their cotemporaries, and that it was intended to make the wrong-doers respond at
once and in the whole at the time, is evident from the following quotation from
Tucker's Life of Jefferson, showing the opinions of both Mr. Jefferson and Mr.
Madison :
"The propositions of Mr. Madison, to which Mr. Jefferson refers in his letter in April, [3d,
1*794,] were founded on his own report to Congress, at the beginning of the session, on the
commercial relations of the United States. They were framed in strict conformity with the
retaliatory policy recommended in the report, and were probably prepared with his concur
rence, as a manuscript draught of them was found among his papers. They proposed to lay spe
cific duties on different branches of manufactures ; to lay additional tonnage duties on the
vessels of those nations who had no commercial treaty with the United States; to reduce the
duties on the vessels of those who had such treaty; to retaliate all the restrictions which were
imposed by other nations, whether on the commerce or the navigation of the United States,
either by the like restrictions or a tonnage duty ; and, lastly, to reimburse the citizens of the
United States for the losses they had sustained, by the illegal procedures of other nations, out
of the additional duties laid on the products and shipping of such nation."
The last paragraph of the veto message says :
" I am, of course, aware that the bill proposes only to provide indemnification for such valid
claims of citizens of the United States against France as shall not have been stipulated for and
embraced in any of the treaties enumerated. But in excluding all such claims, it excludes all,
In fact, for which, during the negotiations, France could be persuaded to agree that she was in
any wise liable to the United States or our citizens."
The President asks, " What remains ; and for what is five millions of dollars
appropriated ?"
28
The reply is simple and easy. It is not for any of the claims stipulated for and
embraced in any of the treaties subsequent to 1800; but for those for which spe
cific stipulations were rendered impossible; because the second article of the con
vention which embraced an obligation on both nations to arrange their mutual
claims, was retrenched — the United States using these claims in payment for the
consent of France to the abrogation of the ancient treaties — and failing to respond
to their owners for private property so taken, for public use.
In the aforegoing remarks on the veto message, I have felt at liberty, and a
duty, to use strong language, seeing that the provocation is great, and demands, or
at least justifies it; for in so grave a matter the President cannot be permitted,
with impunity, to assume the right to make the facts in the case to suit his hostile
intention. It may be, however, that, although the message bears the signature of
the President, and the responsibility for its contents necessarily rests on him, yet it
may be the work of some other mind or unskilful hand. I hope such may be the
fact, and that the respectable members of his cabinet may be equally clear of its
imperfections. But whoever may be its real author or prompters, the long suffering
claimants may with great propriety say, in the language of poor old Job, " Misera
ble comforters are ye all !"
JAMES H. CAUSTEN.
WASHINGTON, D. C., April 25, 1855.
APPENDIX A.
[The following lists of decisions, including all allowed and all disallowed, made on claims of
American citizens against the French government for " debts" by the board of American com
missioners at Paris, appointed to carry into effect the convention with France of April 30,
1803, are copied from their "Registre" thereof, now on the files of the Department of State.]
uAn alphabetical index to the certificates of admittance."
No. of
certifi
cate.
Page.
Names of ships.
Names of claimants, or of those in whose
name each claim stands.
Subject of each
claim.
74
140
Minerva, of Baltimore . . .
Allen Russell
76
140
Harmony
83
140
Atkins, Ambrose
113
146
145
151
Washington
Ash, N. V
Embargo.
170
180
181
190
242
302
242
340
Mary Ann
Adams, KnowJes
Prize cause.
316
355
Joanna
10
21
65
70
Robin
Barry, James 2
Brook John . 3
Supplies, 19 & 20.
Supplies 69
22
71
Active, (Capt. Jacb. Art).
Bernard, Du^aii & Co 2
Supplies, 107.
24
73
34
88
Supplies 106.
36
89
Beard Richard 2
Supplies,1 71.
46
106
Eliza
Supplies 30.
57
72
136
140
Friendship
Hope
Blackhuese, William
Embargo.
106
145
Harriet . . .
107
145
Hector
Baker, Thomas
Embargo.
115
145
149
Bethia
Blackington, James
Embargo.
Embargo.
144
151
Bray J . . , ......
Embargo.
149
173
162
182
Sydney, Fame, Maggy. . .
Barney, Joshua 2
Supplies, 12.
Supplies.
176
186
Betsy
Supplies.
177
186
Hoc
Billing Robert
185
194
Unity
Supplies.
191
198
205
211
211
215
Butler, Anthony
Supplies.
Supplies.
210
214
Harmon?...
Baimeriauit & Co. ..
Supplies.
29
Alphabetical index to the certificates of admittance — Continued.
No. of
certifi
cate.
Page.
Names of ships.
Names of claimants, or of those in whose
name eacli claim stands.
Subject of each
claim.
216
219
Supplies
2:20
Supplies.
Milley
Supplies.
Boot Henry William . ....
237
2:33
Franklin
Brian, James
Bell Win and Jos. Bell and Jot*. Wat-on.
Supplies.
941
24-j
Breuill, Francis
Mon.-y advanced.
257
268
253
268
Rising Sun
Betts, Win. M
Bousquet, A. and Jno
Supplies.
Supplies.
273
279
272
277
Ulrick Rook
Thomas Wilson.
Brush, Jesse
Butler, Anthony
Pri/t; cause.
Supplies.
289
ooo
311
316
Backer T. H
Suppl'es.
*,
Black Alexander 2
Supplie* 36.
310
347
Amy
Supplies.
3->2
362
3^7
371
Lark
Supplies
336
395
Brown, N
Supplies.
•047
409
351
414
Biddle, Js., and Js. Brobson
Supplies.
19
38
69
91
Nan«v
Columbia
Crousillat, Louis 4
Carhart William 3
Supplies, 120.
00
91
53
65
136
139
Ann
Coleman, Prince
Embargo.
73
P()|lv
75
140
Cutts J
Embargo.
80
87
140
142
Eliza...'.
Mary
Clark, Joseph
Church, John
Embargo.
Embargo.
91
Qfi
142
144
Crawford, Jiimes
Embargo.
119
149
Fame
Coleman, John
FiinhartiO.
124
149
Sally
Embargo.
147
151
Flunter
Embargo.
152
166
Polly
Supplies.
]60
172
Supplies.
161
173
Supplies.
167
178
175
184
Clark Win
Supplies.
186
194
Mary
187
195
Bost n
Clark, Robert, alias Robt. Rodez
Supplies.
192
193
199
200
Phoebe
Clement & Taylor
Supplies.
Supplies.
204
210
Betsey Dolphin
Crown'inshield, Benjamin, with Moses
Supplies.
206
211
Townsend and Jas. Cheever.
Supplies.
217
220
M iry
240
241
Supplies
255
257
Su milr.'S
280
278
P'
Causland, Rogers, Saunderson, Wm. Pre&t-
Supplies.
158
17i
man &. Co., and Robt. Wells.
Coleman, Prince, alias Rotch &. Rodman ..
Supplies.
299
336
309
346
Crat't^ Morris, Tunno & Cox
311
348
Cutts Richard.
325
367
Russell. . . .
Crafts E. and vV
Embargo.
330
341
389
399
Lark William
Carrell, Edward
Supplies.
28
79
Dunlap & Irvin 6
Supplies, 121.
31
83
Lydii
Supplies 28.
81
140
Di na...
Dickey James
Embar«o.
105
145
Dorset F ....
Embargo.
118
149
133
150
Ruby.'. ...
Embargo.
142
150
Pfpriry
Enibar«ro.
202
209
213
217
Whim, Fanny .
Derby John
fupplies.
270
251
269
252
Rebecca
Dorn , Andrew C
Derby
Supplies.
Supplies.
277
275
Denton & Hall .
Supplies.
284
295
314
354
Anna
Dnnant, Edward, and John McCulloch
Supplies.
331
395
Duthil & \Vach«muth
332
395
340
397
Duthil Stephen
Supplies.
354
415
Supplies.
32
87
Sally
Edgar, William
Supplies, 68.
55
136
Emerv, Robert ..
Embargo.
Is in Gen. Armstrong's hands.
30
Alphabetical index to the certificates of admittance — Continued.
No. of
certifi
cate.
Page.
Names of ships.
Names of claimants, or of those in whose
name each claim stands.
Subject of each
claim.
86
14-2
Ellison, J. IT.
Embargo 104
1-23
250
149
251
America
E wing, James
Endicott, Jno
Embargo.
Supplies.
287
309
Pollv .
315
355
Elli^ Thomas
H H
62
139
Two Follies
Fairchilds, W
79
J40
Fields, John
101
144
Fame
Frazer, Alexander
102
144
Molly
Farrel, Joshua
Embargo.
164
J76
197
203
t'utiiot
209
214
235
237
-
1
36
Griffiths, T. W 4
4
43
Griibb, James 1
Supplies, 18.
9
65
Betsey
Supplies 45
30
82
Hannah
Griste, John 3
Supplies 23.
42
KiO
45
105
Namilus
Supplies' 24
53
136
Lvdia
Gardner, Shubael
Embargo.
68
70
139
139
Nancy '.
Two Brothers
Gerrish, William
Embargo.
114
149
Thomas Wilson
Goelet, T. F
139
150
143
150
161
173
Grubb, Mathers and Will (Josh. Caiman)
189
196
Mary
Goodhue, Joseph, alias Pettingel & Smith..
Supplies.
190
198
198
205
Supplies.
218
232
2-20
233
Sally Laura
Gibbs & Charming, alias T. L. Boss
Goddard, Nathaniel
Supplies.
Supplies.
246
248
Rub v, Pe""y
Gav, Kbenezer, and Sainl. Toplitf
Supplies.
260
260
Gamble, James
Money advanced
293
317
Eagle
308
345
Supplies.
312
350
Greenleaf, John
Supplies.
317
334
357
395
Friendship
Geyer, Fred'k, Wm. &, Son
Goix, Nicholas
Supplies.
Supplies.
14
65
Supplies, 11.
17
68
Supplies 122.
18
69
peters ... ...
Hayes, Judah . ... 4
Supplies, 105.
25
74
Harrison, George, alias Jas. Tliayer
Supplies.
37
90
Sallv ,
Hemphil). James 3
Supplies, 32.
53
136
Hammond, B
140
150
John
Howland, P
Embargo.
166
263
Washington .
Hjo'gins, Augustin, and David Spear
Supplies.
188
196
201
207
Polly
Hod"es Daniel
266
265
daily
Supplies.
275
274
Supplies.
208
213
Hogari, P
Supplies.
300
339
Hall, Edward...
338
396
Marv
Supplies.
349
414
Hollingsworth, Ths. and SI
Supplies.
64
139
Merchant
Jones, John
Embargo.
98
104
144
M4
Mary
Embargo.
Embargo.
120
149
Molly
212
216
Jackson, Abraham
Supplies.
247
248
Jeft'rv & Russell.
Supplies.
258
259
Johnson, John
Supplies.
339
397
Supplies.
82
140
170
180
Kenny, Thomas, and Geo. Armroyd
Supplies.
222
2->5
Sei-irtower Polly & Betse\
Supplies.
333
395
William
Kirk & Lukens
Supplies.
353
414
Supplies.
5
23
45
73
Livingston, John K 3
Low, 3
Supplies, 15.
Supplies, 21.
47
109
Supplies 37
60
136
Sally
61
139
Richmond
Lee, Robert
Embargo.
78
117
140
149
Favorite .
Little, Alexander
Lewi-*, Samuel
Embargo.
Embargo.
168
179
Lynch William....
Supplies.
174
183
Sally
Lewis, Samuel
Supplies.
238
239
Livingston, Peter William. . . .
Supplies.
243
243
Prize cause.
256
257
Lanssat, Anthony
Supplies.
265
264
Fairy
Lee & Broughton
Supplies.
272
177
Supplies.
31
Alphabetical index to the certificates of admittance — Continued.
No. of
certifi
cate.
Page.
Names of ships.
Names of claimants, or of those in whose
name each claim stands.
Subject of each
claim.
301
313
35-2
13
33
40
41
43
50
54
63
88
112
136
138
165
167
180
163
184
194
229
245
253
254
263
284
294
318
320
344
16
172
305
345
346
59
99
116
153
264
321
26
56
67
89
100
110
111
129
134
135
148
150
155
156
159
163
169
171
189
203
214
219
226
233
236
244
259
297
307
319
337
343
20
66
85
100
126
141
187
339
351
414
65
88
97
98
100
134
136
139
142
146
150
150
177
178
188
192
192
201
231
247
253
256
262
295
318
358
359
404
68
182
342
404
404
136
144
149
167
263
361
74
136
139
142
144
145
145
150
150
150
160
165
169
169
171
175
179
181
197
209
218
221
228
233
238
244
259
33-2
345
359
395
399
70
139
140
144
150
150
195
Fame
Lyman, Theodore .
Supplies.
Supplies.
Supplies.
Supplies, 13.
Supplies, 70.
Supplies, 62.
Supplies, 54.
Supplies, 83.
Supplies, 99.
Embargo.
Embargo.
Embargo.
Embargo.
Embargo.
Embargo.
Supplies.
Supplies.
Supplies.
Supplies.
Supplies.
Supplies.
Supplies.
Supplies.
Supplies.
Supplies.
Supplies.
Supplies.
Supplies.
Supplies.
Supplies.
Supplies.
Supplies, 31,
Supplies.
Supplies.
Supplies.
Prize cause.
Embargo.
Embargo.
Embargo.
Supplies.
Supplies.
Supplies & money.
Supplies.
Embargo.
Embargo.
Embargo.
Embargo.
Embargo.
Embargo.
Embargo.
Embargo.
Embargo.
Embargo.
Supplies.
Supplies.
Supplies.
Supplies.
Supplies.
Supplies.
Supplies.
Supplies,
Supplies.
Supplies.
Supplies.
Supplies.
Supplies,
Supplies.
Supplies.
Supplies.
Supplies.
Supplies.
Supplies.
Supplies.
Supplies.
Supplies, 111.
Embargo.
Embargo.
Embargo.
Embargo.
Embargo.
Supplies,
Sally
Lynham, George
Lunt &. Treadwell, (Captains)
Munay, George William 2
Juno
Molly
Maxwell, Archibald 1
Mitchell, John 4
Miller, Joseph J 4
Union
Makins, Samuel 1
Vulture
March, John
Miller William
Somerset
John
Miller, Christopher
Miller J
Three Friends
Massa^, Charl* s
Mountflorence, James C
MacCreery, William
Mactiea & Stewart .
Miller &. Robertson Tunno & Cox
Mickle, Robert
Martin .
Moltey,
Mackee, [saac, and Edward Dunant.
Apollo
Mallebay & Durand
Marratt John .
Thorn
Norton, Thomas 4
Norton Constant
Kitty
Nichlin, Ph. & R. E. Griffith
Hibemia
O'Brien, Joseph
Orne, J
O'Brien, Michael Morgan
Romulus
Ogier, Thomas
Otis & Mackay
Ann, Leonora
Pitcaime, Joseph, or Wm. Smith
Pote, William
Diana
Pease. Martin . .
Fanny
George
Perry, Gamaliel
Prowse, Daniel
Pollard, John
Zephyr
Palmer, R
Two Sisters
Pike, George
Commerce
Preble, Enoch
Betsey
Phillips, Isaac, or Willis and Yardley
Poole Joseph, alias Rd H Wilcocks
Trial
Penniston, Richard
Mary
Pettingel and Smith, alias J. H. Goodhue...
Purveyance, Samuel
Nvmph
Patterson William ..
Patty. .
George
Patterson, William
Polly
Plankinhorn, John
Francis
Patton, Robert
Pratt, Son &, Kintzing . .
Kitty
Patron, Robert
Friendship
Prebbl'e & Co
Parsons, Eben
Pennock, William
Betsey
Randall Paul Richards 5
Hannah
Betsey-
Russell, William
Robertson, John.
Jane
Rodgers, John
Rodey, Robert, alias Robert Clarck...
32
Alphabetical index to the certificates of admittance — Continued.
No.o
certifi
cate.
Page.
Names of ships.
Names of claimants, or of those in whose
name each claim stands.
Subject of each
claim.
261
261
Rhodes, James, and Hannah Aborn... .
274
273
Supplies
266
158
275
17J
Ann
Ralston, Robert
Rotch & Rodman, alias Prince Colmon...
Supplies.
Supplies.
342
399
Robinson William
Supplies.
323
i>6
Stewart, D ,.
324
364
William.
Nancy. ,
bupphe,
326
370
f»eton & Maitland
333
395
Shoemaker, Jacob
350
414
Active.
Sheafe, James
•3 1" *"
3
39
Supplies 8
6
45
7
46
Snow, Ifaiuh 3
Supplies 33.
12
15
65
65
Sadler, Henry 2
Skipwith, Fulwar 3
Supplies', 5.5.
Supplies H5
22
71
Stewart, Walter, alias Bernard, Du^an &. C
26
74
29
180
Skipwith, Fulwar 5
44
48
101
118
Oneida
Sheffield, Robert 3
Skipwith, F
Supplies, 29.
Supplies 114
49
119
Skipwith, F
Supplies 117
51
136
Hope , . . . .
Shadwick, Nathaniel
58
13o
77
140
Springer, William
Rmhawo"
92
142
F 1 » '
97
144
Snell, James
Embargo.
109
145
Sargent Nathaniel
127
146
150
150
Maryland
Hope
Speaker. J. M
Shillaber, Benjamin
Embargo.
151
166
154
168
D .1 p * p '
162
166
178
175
263
187
Washington
Eliza.
Steinmetz, John
Spear, David, and Augustin Higgins
Stone Robt., and Josh. White
Supplies.
Supplies.
195
202
Smith & Wood
196
202
199
205
200
206
Sally
224
226
Sally Sally Peggy Lark
2-25
228
Supplies
227
229
Supplies.
228
230
Morning Star
Shoemaker, Jacob
Supplies.
249
271
251
270
Sieman, Paul
Sheafe, James, and Richard Salter
Supplies.
283
286
Smith &, Buchanan
Supplies.
288
310
293
317
Shoemaker Jacob, alias Rd. Gamble ...
294
318
Urania
Supplies.
298
303
335
341
Sally, Anna
Surnmere, Joseph
Supplies.
306
314
Saltonstall, G
Supplies.
8
48
Taney Sirnmonds & Co 3
25
74
Thaver, James, alias G. Harrison 3
Supplies, 112.
90
142
137
150
Teer William
157
170
Supplies.
204
210
215
218
Eli?a
245
247
Patuxent . . .
Tunno & Cox, and Miller & Robertson....
Supplies.
246
248
248
249
Ruby, Peggy
Tapliff, Samuel, and Eben. Gray
Taylor, John
Supplies.
Supplies.
269
268
Titterrnary, Jno
Supplies.
286
305
290
312
M ' * 't *
Topi iff' . . .
3r>2
414
Captains Tread well and Lunt
356
418
Supplies.
285
305
Supplies.
296
332
Supplies.
328
373
Supplies.
11
27
35
65
78
89
Menter
Senet
Whitesides. Peter 2
Wales, Epliraim 4
Willin" Leonard 2
Supplies, 13.
Supplies, 38.
Supplies, 44.
52
69
136
139
Dallas
Wildes, William
Embargo.
71
139
White Lemuel
Embargo.
84
140
Embargo.
94
144
Wall Thoma«.
95
144
Wilder Peter
103
144
Massachusetts . . .
White, J...
Embargo.
33
Alphabetical index to the certificates of admittance — Continued.
No. of
certifi
cate.
Page. /;
Names of ships.
Names of claimants, or of those in whose
name each claim stands.
Subject of each
claim.
121
149
Embargo.
1^5
Wells, Richard..., ,
1.30
131
150
150
Carolina Planter
White, Henry
West, Edward ~
Embargo.
Embargo.
132
150
169
179
Wilcocks, R. H ., alias Josh. Poole
Supplies.
178
187
Supplies.
379 ,
182
388
188
191
196
Patty..., ..,
Sylvan -,
West, Nathaniel ,.
Welsh, John
Supplies.
Supplies.
207
212
Wall, Samuel
Supplies.
«2l
222
923
224
225
225
Speedwell. ..,,
Seaflower, Polly & Betsey
WiHis, John J
White, Joseph, and Win. Kimball
Waddell Henry L
Supplies,
Supplies.
234
252
236
253
Betsey -,
Wait & Peirce
Supplies.
Supplies.
962
261 .
Polly ,
White, Joseph, and Andrew Dunlap
Supplies.
267
278
266
276
Wells, Titus
Welman &. C. A. Demon ....
Supplies.
iiSl
278
Weeks & Tucker
Supplies.
282
285
Wilder, Samson V. S
Supplies.
291
312
Windship, Abiel
Supplies.
-304
341
S H 11
Wood Abiel
Supplies.
348
414
„' . " '
355
416
Plvr"
Supplies.
93
142
„ . " ' '.
220
223
Ceres,
An alphabetical index to the certificates of rejection.
Names of ships.
Names of claimants,
or of those in whose
name each claim
stands.
Subject of each
claim.
8|
1-1 •
£~
Page.
Observations.
7
77
Property of James Swan, who hath
Nancy
Prize cause. . . .
124
320
established houses of commerce in
partnership with foreigners and agent
of the French republic during the
revolution.
Vessel cantured after 30th Sept.. 1800.
173
417
The claimants citizens of France.
Uubosse & Lacroix
174
417
The claimant a citizen of France.
29
96
Indemnity for losses bv capture on a
35
103
voy.ige to the United States. A
British subject.
Freight and indemnity for capture, not
Peg<rv ,
Buissin Joseph
39
107
brought before the council of prizes.
Cargo confiscated, and demurrage
Bill's I«le of
43
110
claimed by the insurers at Philadel
phia.
Bills of exchange arising from the pro
Hearts of Oak...
Two Sisters....
Eliza
Wrn. Hoskins.
Barney, Joshua
Bentalow, Paul.
Burrows, John.,,..
Brown & Francis,
alias Jas. Swan.
Bovvers, Jonathan,
alias J-PS. Savage.
Barnard, Tristram. . .
France.
Supplies and
money.
Colonial bills,
118.
Colonial bill, . .
Value of vessel.
Indemnity .....
64
65
68
71
79
83
158
159
280
281
287
288
perty of James Swan. (See Uie 1st
article on this list.)
The claimant in the service of France
w7hen the claim originated.
No evidence of the payees .being citi
zens of the United States, or of their
having acted as agents of such in the
premises.
A bill granted for indemnity."
Vid. Swan, James.
Vid. Savage, Joseph.
For depreciation of a^si^nats paid ac
Seaflower .........
Boland, James
Barney, Joshua. ... . .
Indemnity
Balance of ac
count, &c.
88
104
292
300
cording to contract. The claimants
engaged at the time in covering
French property.
Freight of 200 passengers from France
to Guadaloupe.
Supplies.
34
Alphabetical index to the certificates of rejection — Continued,
Names of ships.
Names of claimants,
or of those in whose
name each claim
stands.
Subject of each
claim.
No. of cer
tificate.
Page.
Observations.
Brinthall
Barney, Joshua
Balance of bill
of exchange.
107
117
301
307
The claimant an officer in the French
service when these claims originated.
141
362
Lucy
Blanchard, Samuel..
Bnineau, .
152
158
375
393
French government at Senegal, and
purchased by individuals.
Indemnity tor losses upon his property
put in requisition.
Kapparen
Young Frederick
Capt. Blom )
161
402
ship of original payee.
Barneval, Geo
165
403
French.
A statement to show that certain ordi
Boullet, M.
172
4J7
nances exist, but none produced.
Jane
12
84
Pollv
Christie, Richard
13
85
port.
Cabot Elie .
15
86
ship, never before the council of
prizes.
John
22
93
.Fame
23
94
never before the council of prizes.
Peace
Collev, William
25
95
Do. do. do.
Prosperity
26
95
Do. do. do.
Trenton
Cook, William
36
103
Indemnity for property plundered by a
Baring
Cooper Sam'l alias
44
110
French frigate.
Jas. Swan.
Colh-y, William. ...
48
115
Demurrage.
Eunice
60
154
Louisa
Russell
Chaugeur, Pierre.. )
Deyme &, Co. .. $
66
159
Ditto, the claimants not citizens of the
United States.
Minerva
Crawford & Donald
son, alias James
Swan.
Classen,
Indemnity
70
77
280
284
See James Swan.
No proof of property being American.
Cooper, John
81
288
An American armed vessel sold to the
Liberty .
84
290
French minister in the United States
and delivered to the French admiral
at sea, and captured by the British.
The claimant in the French service
when the transaction took place.
Collet, James
Freight
91
293
upon payments made.
Freight for coasting voyages from Os-
Cruder &. Co
94
296
tend.
Supplies. The original pjiyees not
102
299
citizens of the United States, nor any
proof of their having acted as agents
for the claimants.
Freight and indemnity.
Callender, Benj ..
in image.
139
353
An account current of the claimant,
Courtenay, Robert .
157
393
not supported by any proof.
Demurrage.
Abigail
4
76
Indemnity for capture and detention,
Dangerfield Bart'w
24
94
never before the council of prizes.
Do. do. do.
113
304
Supplies. No proof to support the
Oincinnatus . . .
Dickey,
120
316
claim. The papers stated to have
been burnt.
Demurrage.
Denton & Hall
129
323
Sundry ordonnanees issued at St. Do
George and Lib
Dunant, Edward....
155
392
mingo in payment for transportation
of merchandise, services in the hos
pital, repairs to bairacks, or payable
to Frenchmen.
Indemnity for a forced sale of cargoes
erty.
Dumas &. Renaudet.
156
392
at St. Domingo.
Claim for an interest in the proceeds of
144
366
a French prize, put in requisition by
the agents of the F/ench government
at Guadalonpe.
No proof to support the claim.
Sallv
Eldred, Thomas
Indemnity
85
290
Indemnity for detention. No proof of
Mary
Fleming, John
100
298
citizens-hip of the claimant.
Supplies ; not American property ; the
claimants foreigners*
35
Alphabetical index to the certificates of rejection— Continued.
Names of ships.
mes of claimants, Subject of each
of tho^e in whose claim,
me each claim
ands.
• Page. Observations.
01 299 Supplies; not American property ; the
claimants foreigners.
8 77 Property of James Swan. (See the first
aiticle on this list.)
19 93 Freight and indemnity for capture.
Never brought before the council of
prizes.
34 103 Freight; property stranded.
50 116 Indemnity for detention.
52 153 Do.
53 128 The property not ascertained to D<
American.
57 133 Freight of passengers.
86 291 Freight of deportees from Brest to Gua-
daloupe, and value of ship condemned
by the British.
93 295 Five bills of exchange. The original
payees not citizens of the U. States,
nor any proof of their having acted
as agents for such of the. claimants.
98 298 Nine bills of exchange, already liqui
dated, and paid by inscription upon
the " Grand Livre " of France.
114 306 Indemnities.
L21 319 Two bills of exchange. No proof of
the citizenship of the original payees.
140 357 Damage sustained in his property by
the troops at Dunkirk.
171 416 See Martin Thomas.
21 93 Indemnity for capture and detention.
Never brought before the council of
prizes.
33 102 Indemnity for capture and detention.
Never brought before the council ot
prizes.
43 110 See Paul Bentalon.
87 292 Indemnity.
112 703 Included in the case of Jos. J. Miller,
which was certified for admittance
under the number 41.
: 8 308 Ship and cargo captured. Never brought
before the council of prizes.
145 368 No proof to support the claim.
148 369 Capture. Never brought before the
council of prizes.
16 92 The property of James Swan. See the
first article on this list.
30 99 Freight and demurrage.
45 11 Freight of passengers. Chartered by
the French consul general at Phiia
delphia.
49 115
73 289 See Swan, James.
Four Friends . . .
Jerusha
les, E
Lydia
Fair American..
uld, Erick
WoodrupSims..
odge, Henry
Paul Bentalon.
George Lane.
Sally
lall, John
Maria Caroliri
Swan wick...
Jangher, John
Justice, J 3
Young, James
Enterprise...
Friendship...
American. . . .
alias James Swan.
74 282 Do.
11 84 Indemnity; paid.
103 300 Whose premium was paid.
James Swan,
[ngraham
of N. America. 4
106 301 Do.
of N. America. 5
Ill 303 Do.
John, James.
Roebuck
Governor Mi
Kensington.
Mercury....
Gluckstern,T
Marken, a
Columba ]
tunata.
of N.America. 5
146 368 Indemnity for detention.
Kinsman 2 •
28 98 Indemnity for capture and detention.
Never brought before the council of
prizes.
42 110 Freight of passengers. Chartered by the
French consul general at Philadelphia.
41 115 Indemnity for capture and detention.
Never brought before the council ol
prizes.
137 351 Chartered by a French house for the
French go /eminent.
952 403 No proof of the property taken by the
Kemp 3
Kerr, Walter 2 1
Keown 6 Freight, &c
French.
36
Alphabetical index to the certificates of rejection — Continued
Names of ships.
Names of claimants,
or of those in whose
name each claim
stands.
Subject of each
claim.
h
eg
*i
Page.
Observations.
•"x.
Cassius
171
9
54
115
168
164
149
107
109
40
46
63
82
99
147
171
95
110
134
170
41
128
160
32
62
92
97
136
159
163
166
1
6
14
67
416
78
128
306
416
403
371
410
416
108
111
158
288
298
369
416
296
302
3*6
416
109
323
394
102
158
295
297
348
393
403
409
75
78
85
279
See Martin, Thomas.
Vessel condemned by United States.
Indemnity for capture and detention,
not brought before the council of
prizes.
The original payees not citizens of the
United ?• tatc-s, and no proof of their
having acted as agents ol the claim
ant.
No proof of citizenship of the original
payees.
A statement .that there exists an
•rdonuauce for supplies, but none
produced.
No proof that the original payees were
citizens of the United 8tat«-s, or that
they acted as agent for the claimant.
Freight and demurrage.
An open account current ; no proof
but the oath of the i arty stating an
ord on nance to have been burnt.
Uemurrage.
Freight and demurrage,
Paid.
Indemnity for damage done to their
ships, and demurrage.
Supplies, French property, and paid
two-thirds in " bons " and one-third
in " rentes perpetulles."
Ship chartered by a French merchant ;
property covered in the name of the
captain.
No proo! except a statement that certain
ordonriances(did exist, but are lost.
No proof of the delivery of the property.
Freight.
The first not citizens of the United
States.
Capture. Released by the council of
prizes ; but no proof of the insuffi
ciency of the captors.
Indemnity for capture and detention,
never brought before the council of
prizes.
Freight and demurrage.
No proof of the citizenship of the
original payees.
Indemnity for capture and detention,
never brought before the council of
prizes.
Indemnity for detention.
The original payees noi citizens of the
United States, nor any proof of their
having acted as agents ler the claim
ants.
Freight.
No pi'oof of American property.
No proof that the original payees were
citizens of the United States, nor of
their having acted as agents for such.
No proof of the property taken by
French.
Released by the council of prizes ; no
proof of the insufficiency of captors.
Indemnity for capture and detention.
Never brought before the council
of prizes.
The property of James Swan. (See the
first article of this list.)
Indemnity for losses by capture on a
voyage to the United States. A Brit
ish subject.
B"ill of each. No proof of the Ameri
can citizenship of the payees.
Loup, J. &. B ,
Ann and Susan.
Marv...
Hawk
Apollo.
Luttaitre 4
Le Key, James D...
La Rousselliere
30 bills of ex
change.
8 bills of ex
change.
Haley, Nathan
Halsey, Thomas
Lloyd.
MeGruder, James. ..
;;'.'.."".;".'..'.'.'.'
Monk •
Murray, James V.,
and William Law
rence.
Murray & Mumford.
Murray, James V. . .
Manwaring, John. . .
Martin, Thomas,and
others.
Nott, William
Brothers
General Wayne.
Freight
Fame .
Nathan freres.... >
Denton & Hall... J
Newell, Thomas ....
Gen. Mattcville.
Ruth
Peters, John
•
Phoenix
Tin-Marken,
Young Frede
rick, Gluck-
stern, Colum-
ba Fortunata.
Petit & Bayard
28 bills of ex
change.
Piritard, John M....
Piiper, Henry
Perron
'a'biils" of "ex"
change.
Phillips, Henry
Patin
Little Cherub. ..
Mary
Reide, Robert
Ramsden, Thomas. .
Russell, William...
Randall, Paul Rich
ard.
37
Alphabetical index to Hie certificates of rejection— Continued.
Names of ships.
Vamcs of claimants,
or of those in whose
name each claim
stands.
Amelia.
Fame .
Success, Polly,
and Recovery
Eliza.
Hope
Indian Chief.
ubject of each
claim.
Ramsdcn, Thomas.
Russell, Joseph....
Reilly, Thomas
Rigault, Charles...
Robert, Francis...
Sinclair, John.
Smith,— (J. Swan)
Stevens, Richard
Swail, Simon. ..
George.
Baring.
Diana
Symes, Elias D.
Potomac Plante
Minerva
Swan, James, alia
James S. Cooper
Skipwith, Fulwar
Staples, Edward .
Skipwith, Fulwar
Se'
108
[23
Bills of ex
change.
11 bills of ex
change.
Hearts of Oak.
Abigail
Eliza
Swan, James
wan, James, alias
Crawford & Don
aldson.
wan, James, alias
Brown & Francis.
wan, James
Young James
Missing*.
Sally*...
Retrieve.
Thomas
Iris, Betsy, En
terprise, am
Hamilton.
Two Sistersf.
3wan, James, alias
3. C. Jones.
wan, James, alias
H. Jackson.
Swan, James.
Smith & Ridgway
Stockt-r, Ebenezer
and others.
Spooner, Andrew..
Stewart & Plunket
Schweighausen
Dobree.
Smith & Buchanan
Spooner, Andrew
alias B. Cabarru
Salter,
Sadler, Henry
Swan, James, ant
Schweitzer.
Savage, Jos., alia
Jona. Bowers.
upplies...
applies....
•J
4
I
I
Supplies.
3 hills of ex
change.
Observations.
137
[32
2 ordonnances.. 133
L3S
150
153
1-13
71)
2*2
2*2
:<o-2
313
320
331
The
with for
93 Freight of provisions on account of the
French government, landed at Brest.
02 Freight and indemnity.
20 No proof of American citizenship ot
the claimant.
25 No proof of citizenship.
No proof of the original payees being
citizens of the United States, nor of
their having acted as agents of the
claimants.
76 Freight and indemnity. French na
tional property covered in the name
of the claimant under contract with
the French consul at New York.
76 The property of James Swan. (See
the first at tide on this list.)
Indemnity for capture. Never brought
before the council of prizes.
93 Freight and indemnity for capture.
Never brought before the council of
prizes.
Indemnity for capture and detention.
Never brought before the council of
prizes.
110 The property of Jamrs Swan, (bee
the first article on this list.)
137 Not American property.
153 No evidence of the property, and ap
pears to be for demurrage.
154 13 colonial bills. No evidence of Ame-
ican property in six 01 them ; the re
maining seven arising from the^ Bar
ings' cargo, the property ot'Jas. Swan.
(See the first article upon this list.)
he property of James Swan.
claimant in partnership
eigners.
Vessel chartered by Dallatde, Swan &
Co., to the French government.
281 roperty of James Swan ; covered by
Higgenson.
82 Chartered to the French government
by James Swan; taken and con
demned by the Brit sh.
rei"lit of passengers from France to
Guadaloupe ; vessel taken and con
demned by the British.
Money paid by James Swan, as agent
of the French government, to J. R.
Livingston, for leather delivered at
Bordeaux.
ndemnity for detention, &c.
Property plundered.
No proof of American citizenship of
Spooner.
An ordonnance payable to a French
man for baking bread, and another to
a Frenchman also for transportation
of merchandise.
No proof of property being American
when sold to the French government.
No proof of the citizenship of the
original payees, nor of their having
acted as agents of the claimants.
No proof of citizenship of the claim
ants.
Freight of French passengers ; vessel
chartered by the government.
Demurrage.
Swan in partnership with foreigners.
Freight and indemnity.
Is possibly in General Armstrong's possession.
38
Alphabetical index to the certificates of rejection— Continued.
Names of ships.
Names of claimants,
or of those in whose
name each claim
stands.
Subject of each
claim.
£2
V. cS
CO
i?*3
Page.
Observations.
Emelie
Tupper &. Platt
10
18
31
55
56
80
96
138
154
116
14-2
37
38
51
78
89
105
126
130
125
2
78
92
101
129
129
287
296
352
391
307
364
104
107
117
285
292
300
322
324
322
75
Freight of passengers and value of a
ship. A transport in the pay of the
French government; the ship pur
chased in France ; captured and con
demned by a British court of admi
ralty as French p operty.
Indemnity for capture and detention;
never brought before the council of
prizes,
fndemnity for deviation and detention.
Demurrage.
Domiciliated at Ostend. Goods found
in a foreign bottom. No proof of the
property belonging to the claimant.
No original or any other document in
support of the claim, except the me
morial of the party.
Merchandise and money taken in re
quisition. No proof to support the
claim.
Indemnity for seizure and detention.
Loss on cargo. Paid and accepted in
assignats.
Bills stated to have been burnt. No
copies produced, or any proof to
show the original payees.
No proof to support the claim. The
oath of the claimant stating the
papers to have been left at Cape
Francois in £t. Domingo, and sup
posed to have been burnt.
Freight and demurrage. Paid.
Indemnity for freight, capture, deten
tion, and damages ; never brought
before the council of prizes.
Indemnity for depreciation of assignats.
Vessel captured after the 30th of Sep
tember, 1800.
Freight of grain landed at L 'Orient by
charter of the French government.
Claims paid and funded by the French
government before the formation of
the convention of the 30th of April,
1803.
Freight.
For transportation.
Ordonnanoes payable to Frenchmen
for salaries as officers at St. Domingo.
Indemnity for loss of property at Cape
Francois, St. Domingo, and for re
turn cargoes taken by the English.
Mary
Titcombe
Mercury
Hamilton
Mary
Todd, George
Teer, William
Thompson, Wm ....
Taylor, James
Supplies
Theric, John F
Tilden David
Delaware
Truxton, .
Betsy
Vanuxem, James,..
Supplies
Woodhiiry
Laurcns
Whi e, Thomas. .
Suffolk
West, P
Domiuick Terry.
Chesapeake
Polly and Betsy.
Wain, Jesse, and
Robert.
Wise, William
Williamson, D.,and
others.
White, Joseph, and
Wm. Kimball.
Wei man and C. A.
Denton.
Yellot, Oliver, and
Thompson.
Zacharie, Coopman
&. Co.
39
APPENDIX B.
Extract from the instructions to Messrs. Robert R. Livingston and James Monroe, our ministers
to France, dated March Id, 1803, and accompanied with a draught of a proposed treaty for the
transfer to the United States of the territory of Louisiana, and for making provision for claims
due to our citizens from France, which were embraced by the 4*/t and 5th articles of the conven
tion of 1800.
"It is apprehended that the French government will feel no repugnance to our designating
the classes of claims and debts which, embracing more equitable considerations than the rest.
we may believe entitled to a priority of payment. It is probable, therefore, that the clause of
the 6th article, [of the draught herewith,] 'referring it to our discretion, may be safely insisted
on. We think the following classification such as ought to be adopted by ourselves :
" 1st. Claims under the 4th article of the convention of September, 1800 ;
" 2d. Forced contracts or sales imposed upon our citizens by French authorities ; and,
" 3d. Voluntary contracts, which have been suffered to remain unfulfilled by them."
The above classification does not embrace any of the captures that were embraced by the 2d
article ; but only those claims embraced by the 4th article for property not definitively con
demned, and by the 5th article for debts ; said articles being in the following words:
" ARTICLE 4. Property captured, and not yet definitively condemned, or which may be cap
tured before the exchange of ratifications, (contraband goods destined to an enemy's port
excepted,) shall be mutually restored on the following proofs of ownership, viz: [here follows
a form of passport.] * * * This article shall take effect from the date of the signature of
the present convention. And if, from the date of the said signature, any property shall be
condemned contrary to the intent of the said convention, before the knowledge of this stipula
tion shall be obtained, the property so condemned shall without delay be restored or paid
for.
" ARTICLE 5. The debts contracted by one of the two nations with individuals of the other,
or by the individuals of one with the individuals of the other, shall be paid, or the payment
may be prosecuted in the same manner as if there had been no misunderstanding between the
two States. But this clause shall not extend to indemnities claimed on account of captures or
confiscations"
This emphatic exclusion of captures and confiscations is a complete, clear, and conclusive
refutation of President Pierce's allegation that the claims for captures and condemnations
which were surrendered to France under, and by the erasure of, the 2d article of tUe conven
tion of 1800, were not intended to be, and were not, provided for by the convention of If
This is an indisputable fact.
The convention of 1803 placed in the hands of the United States twenty millions ot francs,
to be by them distributed among the claimants for claims described in said 4th and 5th arti
cles of the convention of 1800, and for no other purpose whatever ; and the twenty millions
were so distributed, as is exhibited by the copy of the report of the board of commissioners
who adjudicated them, being the next preceding document to this present, and marked A;
which shows awards made in six prize causes, all of which were previously ordered to be re
stored by the council of prizes ; but no other prize case was allowed for by the board
otherwise paid for.
Our ministers agreed with the French ministers that the sum of twenty millions ot
would be accepted by the United States in full satisfaction and discharge of all the claims of
our citizens embraced by said 4th and 5th articles ; it was considered an estimate far beyond
the real claims so provided for, and our ministry sought for and obtained an acknowledgment
of the French government that the excess (computed at four millions) should inure to our
government — not to the claimants.
The Minister of the French Treasury wrote thus to our ministers, dated Paris, April 30,
1803:
"If, in the event, and against all probability, the sum to be paid does not reach twenty
millions, my government will form no claim upon what may remain."
Mr. Livingston wrote to our Secretary of State, July 30, 1803 :
"Mr. Skipwith still thinks that the American debt will fall much within the twenty millions
for which we have engaged, and all the fair creditors be fully satisfied— the supposed debt
being extremely exaggerated in America."
The board of commissioners to audit the claims sat in Paris, and at an early period of their
proceedings they rejected various parts of claims for freight, demurrage, property put in
requisition by the French government, &c., &c. Such rejections were loudly complained of as
unjust and in violation of the convention; these complaints being forwarded to our Secretary
of State, who addressed instructions thereon to our minister on the 31st January, 1804, viz:
" Should the French government refuse to concur in any proposition that will restore the
latitude given to claims as defined by the first convention, [1800,] and which is narrowed and
obscured by the text of the last, [1803,] it will be proper to settle with the government, if it
can be done, such a construction of this text as will be most favorable to all just claims, par-
40
ticularly those for freights, indemnities, property p«t In requisition, and the separate property
of individuals who are concerned in the disqualifying partnerships mentioned in the conven
tion, which are said to be threatened with rejection by the board at Paris,"
Mr. Livingston, in reply to the above, said, May 3, 1804;
" Your instructions to negotiate a new explanatory treaty proceeds upon the idea that the
convention [of 1803] does not include all the bonajide debts provided for by the convention of
Morfontaine, [1800.} Whatever inaccuracy there may be in the expression, it was certainly
the intention to make it extensive, except so far as to preclude foreigners and foreign property
from its provisions. The first article shows clearly that was the object of the treaty ; nor do I
think that the subsequent words control, though they certainly somewhat obscure, the sense."
The French Minister of the Treasury, M. Marbois, wrote to Mr. Livingston as foDows, dated
Paris, July 1, 1804:
" I observe, sir. you desire to form an approximate estimate of the debt, and to ascertain by
how much it will exceed the twenty millions fixed upon for its liquidation. I request you to
bear in mind that, during the negotiation, in which I had the honor of being engaged with
you, the sum of twenty millions of francs hud been determined on, in. order to extinguish tho
whole American claim and the interest up to the day of the treaty, the e^cution of which the
convention of 30th April, 1803, had for its object."
Mr. Livingston to our Secretary of State, Paris, August 29, 1804 :
" Though I have received no formal answer to my note on the subject of the debt yet I have
pretty well ascertained that it [the French government] will reject any new negotiation, and
that it will insist that we were to pay the whole of the debts due before the treaty of Morfon
taine, [1800,] that fall within the description of the treaty, even if it exceeded the sum of
twenty millions."
M. Talleyrand, Minister of Exterior Relations, to Mr. Livingston, dated Paris, September 6,
1804:
" In adhering to these dispositions, conformable to the treaty of 1800, and from which his
imperial Majesty will not deviate, any explanatory convention would be superfluous- and the
intention of his imperial Majesty is to keep from all future question an affair completely ter
minated. The convention of 1803 foresaw the whole case; the whole of the American claims
are to be placed to the account of the federal government; a list of them has been made, [viz:
the 'conjectural note,' which is appended to the convention of 1803.] The liquidation of the
articles of which it is composed shall be decided before the rest; if it does not reach the sum of
twenty millions, other claims will be comprehended therein ; but none shall be which exceed
this sum, because it is at this point that the two governments are agreed to stop."
Mr. Livingston to Mr. Madison, Secretary of State, September 14, 1804 :
" I enclose the reply of the minister upon the subject of the debts. It is in the language I
expected ; and were it not that I was in hourly expectation of the arrival of General Arm
strong, I should reply to it, and show that when we assumed to pay to the amount of the
twenty millions [of francs,] it was not intended to discharge France from any excess, since the
words of the treaty will justify this construction ; though, in good faith, we really believed
that we were making a gaining bargain, and for that reason procured the assurance that the
excess should belong to us. This, from the statements we received from both the treasury and
from Mr. Skepwith, we had every reason to believe, and it would be candid to own that in one
of the draughts which was substantially agreed to, we justified the construction the minister
has put upon the treaty. This article was, in rewording the convention, struck out without
alteration by M. Marbois ; and, as we saw the advantage it might give us, was not observed on
by Mr. Monroe and myself till he had left us ; and, indeed, it seemed to be almost too sharp to
say we were to gain it the debts fell short, but not lose if they exceeded."
Mr. Armstrong, Mr. Livingston's successor, to M. Marbois, Paris, May 20, 1805:
'• Your argument stands thus : 'France owes certain debts to citizens of the United States :
these debts are now to be paid ; therefore France is to be considered the payer.' In this state
ment, two or three material facts are altogether omitted, viz: That France has already paid
these debts, to the amount of twenty millions of francs, by her transfer of Louisiana to the
United States; that the United States have actually received this transfer sixteen months ago,
and, in consideration thereof, have made arrangement for fulfilling all the obligations it im
poses. Between the United States and citizens acknowledged to be her own, there can be no
immediate authority. Her responsibility is complete, and their confidence has never been
shaken."
41
APPENDIX C.
The following are copied from the letter-book of Messrs. John Mercer, Isaac Cox Barnet,
and William Maclure, composing the Board of Commissioners at Paris, to carry into effect the
convention with France of April 30, 1803.
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES COMMISSION OF CLAIMS,
Paris, December 26, 1803.
SIR • Having on the 23d instant been informed by the minister of the United States of the
ratification of the treaty lately concluded with France, and of the confirmation by the Presi
dent of our appointment as commissioners, we now transmit a report of the business in which
we are engaged. We have the honor to be, with great respect, sir, your obedient servants.
[Extract]
The undersigned commissioners, appointed under the convention concluded on the 30th
April, 1803, between the United States^and France, respectfully submit the following repor
, , ^
* of the undersigned, being in Paris, received from the American
n9toune,wo o e uner, ,
minister commissions to carry, provisionally, into execution the object of the convention
Upon perusing this instrument, and recollecting the principles of the constitution of the
United States they were of opinion that no final act could be performed by them in relation
to the objects embraced by it, until its ratification by the competent authorities in America
WThou°ghnthis opinion precluded all definitive decision upon the claims intended to be provi
ded for the commissioners then present did not deem it to be inconsistent with the duty which
that opinion prescribed to adopt certain preparatory measures which might be useful :
hastening the ultimate settlement of the claims, within the time limited by the convention m
the event of its being ratified by the United States. The second article of the convention [ot
18031 declaring its object to be.the payment of certain claims, whose result was comprised in a
conjectural note annexed to it, and there being no note accompanying the copy which
commissioners received, they felt the necessity of possessing that document. A paper was
presented to them by the agent of the United States, with information that he received
from one of the American ministers, for the conjectural note referred to. Though there cou
be no doubt of the correctness of this information, it was supposed proper to ascertain officially
the true character which belonged to that paper ; it was accordingly enclosed to Mr. Divings-
ton and Mr Monroe with the letter of the 7th of July, hereto annexed and marked No 1. In
paper was returned by Mr. Livingston with his answer, marked No. 2. _ An exact copy of the
conjectural note, thus ascertained to be the one intended by the convention, is annexed to this
report, and marked No. 3. * * * It will be observed that no prize cases are found upon the
conjectural note. * * * , .
Though the undersigned believe that the principles of the convention will cause certain
deductions to be made from the conjectural note, they cannot at present pronounce with any
decree of certainty that the claims which it embraces, including the interest due upon them,
will be covered bf twenty millions of livres; beyond this sum they will not consider it their
duty to direct any liquidation to be made.
To JAMES MADISON, Esq.,
Secretary of State of the United States, Washington.
[Extract,]
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES COMMISSION OF CLAIMS,
Paris, March 22.
SIR- * * * It is your opinion, expressed in your letter of the 13th instant, that the
whole powers of the board extend only to two questions: 1st. Whether the debt is due to ar
American citizen or his representative. 2d. Whether it existed before the 30th of Septe
C# *°°» In obedience to the duties which we can never doubt these clauses impose upon
us, we have uniformly extended our examinations to the following points :
1st, Was the debt contracted by the French government with an American citizen t
2d. Did it exist before the 30th of September, 1800 ? .
3d. Has such American citizen established a house of commerce m foreign countries in
co-partnership with foreigners?
4th Can he by the nature of his commerce, be considered as domicihated abroad [
5th. Has he, under the circumstances of his case, a right to the protection of the Unite
Qf a fpq ?
6th. Was the merchandise or other property American when it passed into the hands of the
French government? •,
We also, under the 4th article, inquire whether the claim is for supplies, embargoes, and
captures made at sea. When we come to examine into the prize cases, we shall be equally
attentive to the principles applied by the convention to that description of claims.
To ROBERT R. LIVINGSTON, Esq.,
Minister Plenipotentiary, $c., fyc.
42
[Extract]
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES COMMISSION OF CLAIMS,
Paris, April 24, 1804.
SIR: * * * Left in this situation, we are unable to assert whether the claims found upon
the conjectural note, and which have already received our opinion, will exceed or fall short of
the twenty millions, beyond Avhich, as stated in our report of 26th December last, we do not
feel authorized to go. * * * After finishing the examination of the few claims still
remaining on the conjectural note, we shall proceed to those not on it, and direct the liquida
tion of such as we may think fall within the principles of the convention, provided those pre
viously examined do not absorb the twenty millions. * * *
Under this construction of the convention, such claims as come in late, amongst which we
fear will be found most of the prize cases, must remain undecided.
To JAMES MADISON, Esq.,
Secretary of State, $c.
[Extract.]
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES COMMISSION OF CLAIMS,,
Paris, April 30, 1804.
SIR: * # * The principles which we have deduced from the convention of 30th April,
1803, and applied to the claims, were noticed generally in our letter to you of 22d of March
ultimo; but it may not be improper to repeat them here. We consider the claims of Ameri
can citizens upon the French government, under the convention of 1800, as directed to be
settled according to the regulations and principles established in that under which we have
been appointed : we have, therefore, considered it our duty to inquire — •
1st. Whether the debt was due in its origin to an American citizen ?
2d. Whether it existed before the 30th of September, 1800?
3d. Has such an American citizen established a house of commerce in foreign countries in
partnership with foreigners ?
4th. Can he, by the nature of his commerce, be considered as being domiciliated abroad ?
5th. Has he, under the circumstances of his case, a right to the protection of the United
States?
6th. Was the merchandise or other property American when it passed into the hands of the
French government ? .
*7th. Does the claim arise from supplies, embargoes, or captures made at sea; excluding from
the wrord supplies, freight, indemnity, and demurrage, except when they are claimed as being
incidental to embargoes ?
8th. In prize cases we shall examine whether order of restitution has been made by the
Council of Prizes; whether the insufficiency of the captors is shown.
9th. We consider it correct to examine the cases upon the conjectural note before any other —
to decide upon them according to their respective dates, when the state of the papers will allow
us to preserve that order.
10th. We consider it a fair construction of the convention that we have no authority to direct
any liquidation after the twenty millions of livres shall be covered ; and that our duties here
will terminate on the 21st of October next, that being the day, according to our information,
which will complete the year from the time when the ratification was exchanged at Washington.
It appears that there are 148 claims in the French office of liquidation alone, not included
in the conjectural note, copies of sundry papers belonging to sixty of those being before us;
their amount, exclusive of interest, appears to be upwards of six millions of livres. What
proportion of them may be embraced by the principles of the convention, we are unable at
present to determine.
To ROBERT R. LIVINGSTON, Esq.,
Minister Plenipotentiary, $c., $0.
[Extract.]
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES COMMISSION OF CLAIMS,
Paris, August 13, 1804.
SIR: We have the honor to transmit herewith the whole number of claims which we have
declared to be embraced by the convention of 30th April, 1803, and for the liquidation of
which we have sent certificates to the French offices, as directed by the 8th article. * * *
It will be remarked that but few prize cases have been brought before us. It is understood
that the greater number is still pending before the Council of Prizes, or are pursued by the
claimants for the purpose of ascertaining the situation of the captors. (Appendix A.)
To JAMES MADISON, Esq.,
Secretary of State, $c.
43
APPENDIX D.
Between the years 1793 and 1800, France captured many American vessels in which .Spanish
^;tJinm*±l^rtt?^^PotsU^ of State, instructed M, Pinck^
our minister at Madrid, thus emphatically :
and could not be included in the release."
Such were the inflexible positions of the two parties, who continued the negotiations up to
with France of September 30, 1800, the su
« ARTICLE 6 It not having been possible for the said plenipotentiaries to agree upon a mode
by whTcTtlJ •abo^mentioSed boa'rd of commissioners ; should arbitrage ahe ^™™*™£g
from the excess of foreign cruisers, agents, consuls, or tribunals, in ^JSK^^StSS
which might be imputable to their two governments, they have express!} agr
vprnnpnt shall reserve (as it does by 'this convention) to itself, its subjects or citizens,
rgespeCrvdy, Si L rights wldch they noi have, and under which they may hereafter bring
forward their claims, at such times as may be most convenient t
The claims thus postponed were precisely like those postponed by the 2d article ^ of "the con-
vention of 1800 with France; they were the same character of wrong, and inflicted a t th
lam time, and by the same class of cruisers, and in many instances, on the sa me Am mean
Sr ,Mr S^«
o?1800 she had uniformly admitted; whereas Spain ^«»*5^^^^SS™?SSl
for those embraced in said 6th article of her convention. The United States ratine
vent ion Sdina said 6th article, on the 9th of January, 1804; but the Spanish government
iaPrds%nd satisfied them in the transfer of the Floridas. But she exacted from the United
Ssates, by the 14th article thereof, the following proof:
"ARTICLE 14. The United States hereby certify that they have not received ^y compensa
tion from France for the .njuries they suffered from her privateers, consuls, ^tribunals, on
the coasts and in the ports of Spain, for the satisfaction of which provision is mad
treaty ; and they will present an authentic statement of the prizes made, and their r value,
that Spain may avail herself of the same in such manner as she may deem just and pioper.
The required statement was to be made of, and founded upon such awards in .favor ot
American citizens, for captures so described, out of five millions of dollars, to be pai
United States as the consideration for the Floridas, as a board of commissioners might
determine Accordingly, such certificate was furnished to the Spanish government ; by which
ft ap^t that awards were made on French captures originating prior to September 30, 1800,
on 173 vessel, and their value was ascertained to be $2,845,619 30, being an average per
VeTh1es°ef m 'vesUs,' and also 191 rejected vessels, have been deducted in the statement made
at page 21.
44
APPENDIX E.
FRENCH SPOLIATIONS.
" On the 5th of February, [1802] a memorial was presented from sundry merchants of Balti
more, praying relief in the case of numerous and heavy losses sustained in consequence of the
illegal capture and condemnation of their property, under the authority of the French govern
ment, prior to the promulgation of the late convention between the United States and France,
[of September 30, 1800,] in the provisions of which compact the memorialists discover an un
qualified surrender of their claims, instead of the redress which they expected to obtain.
"This memorial, with others of a similar nature, were referred to a select committee.
" On the llth of March, Mr. Griswold laid the following motion on the table :
" ' Resolved, That it is proper to make provision, by law, towards indemnifying the mer
chants of the United States for losses sustained by them from French spoliations, the claims
for which losses have been renounced by the final ratification of the convention with France
as published by proclamation of the President of the United States.'
" On the ensuing day, a motion made by Mr. Griswold to take up this motion for considera
tion was lost, without debate — Yeas, 35; nays, 39.
"On the 15th, the order of the day on the bill for repealing the internal taxes having been
called for, Mr. Griswold moved its postponement till the next day, for the purpose of previously
taking up the above resolution.
" The motion of Mr. Griswold was advocated by Mr. Griswold, of Connecticut; Mr.Lowndea,
of South Carolina; Mr. John C. Smith, of Connecticut ; Mr. Dana, of Connecticut; Mr. Bayard,
of Delaware, and Mr. Rutledge, of South Carolina; and opposed by Mr. S. Smith, of Mary
land ; Mr. Mitchell, of New York ; Mr. Gregg, of Pennsylvania ; Mr. Eustis, of Massachusetts ;
and Mr. Bacon, of Massachusetts, in a debate which continued until the usual hour of adjourn
ment.
" Those who advocated the motion observed that, though it was nearly two months since the
select committee had been raised to whom petitions for indemnity had been referred, that com
mittee had not yet met; that it was full time to attend to a subject so interesting as that in
volved in them: that, as the principle of indemnity was of a general abstract nature, it was
not so proper for the decision of a select committee as for that of a Committee of the Whole ;
that it was important, before a decision was had on the repeal of the internal taxes, that the
extent of the indemnities allowed by the government should be ascertained. It was contended
that the claims of the merchants could not be rejected, as they were too just to be disregarded.
The sole object of the resolution was, to bring the principle of indemnity before the House,
unfettered, that its decision might not be embarrassed by details ; and supposing that there
might be an indisposition to pledge the nation to an unlimited extent, the words used were,
' towards indemnifying.' It was, therefore, insisted that gentlemen who were disposed to do
anything, could feel no objection to a resolution so qualified as to extend only to cases where
losses had been renounced by the treaty.
'' It was said to be cruel, at once, without a hearing, to decide against the claims of our
merchants ; and that it was evident, that whoever voted for taking up, at that time the bill
for the repeal of the internal taxes, would vote not only against indemnifying, but even against
hearing ; because, by voting for a repeal of the internal taxes, he would vote away all means
of indemnification. The repeal of the internal taxes being the least pressing of all the business
before the House, ought to be postponed to the last period of the session ; nor ought it to be
then adopted, without the fullest assurance of our ability to dispense with the product of these
taxes. How was it possible, in the existing state of things, to determine this point, when the
appropriations required for the year had not been made, and when the extent of these demands
had not been ascertained?
" With regard to the amount of the claimed reparation, it was alleged that that was a con
sideration which ought to be placed altogether out of the question, as common honesty required
that every just debt should be paid, wherever an ability to pay existed, whether it was one
dollar or one hundred millions of dollars ; and it was added, that these claims were the more
just, as the government of the United States had received an ample remuneration for any de
mands which it might satisfy in the abandonment, on the part of the French government, of
our previous guarantee of the French West India possessions. It was finally declared, that a
refusal to take up the subject, at this time, would be considered as an ultimate refusal to attend
to it all.
" Those who opposed the motion denied the assertion, made on the other side, that the subject
had been neglected. The truth was, that the first petition presented had been immediately
referred to a committee, to whom all the subsequent petitions had likewise been referred. That
committee had made progress, but had considered it improper to decide until all similar peti
tions expected should be received. There was not a doubt but that, as the subject merited, so
it would receive a measure of attention commensurate to its importance. But the present res
olution offered was so broad and vague as entirely to defeat its avowed end ; whereas, the
reference which had been already made was the most correct, inasmuch as it instructed the
committee to examine all the documents connected with the subject and to report their opinion
upon them ; on receiving which opinion, the House would be sufficiently informed to make an
enlightened decision ; while, on the other hand, the present proposition went to commit the
House on the whole extent of the subject, without the least examination into its details.
45
" The claims made for spoliated property were extremely various and dissimilar ; and though
it might be just to grant indemnity for some, there were other claims not founded on any just
pretensions. The best way of insuring the success of just claims was to avoid all precipitate
steps; for, before any claims could be sanctioned, it was necessary to analyze and classify, on
mature consideration and full examination, the various descriptions of demands.
"It was observed that it was not so clear, as some gentlemen imagined, that our merchants
had been deprived of valuable rights by the mode in which the French convention had been
ratified. Gentlemen were called upon to recollect the mass of depredation committed by
Great Britain, and her engagements, under treaty, to make reparation ; yet, to that day, rep
aration had been evaded under a variety of pretexts. Suppose the French convention had
contained the same provisions with the British, would they have insured payment? No. The
operations under one treaty might have gone on in the same manner as under the other, and
with like effect.
" With regard to the repeal of the internal taxes, that formed a subject of entirely distinct
consideration. But if, in compliance with the unequivocal wishes of the people, they should
be repealed, no prejudice would attach to the just claims o'f our merchants, the examination of
which would be a work of years, and which would, without doubt, be indemnified, even if it
should be necessary, for that purpose, to restore the repealed taxes.
" General S. Smith closed the debate in a speech of much energy, the latter part of which
was couched in the following terms:
" ' It is not my purpose, (said he,) at this time, to enter into a discussion of the claims of our
merchants, because I think this is not the proper occasion. But I will tell gentlemen, that, if
they were disposed to destroy those claims, they could not have pursued a plan more effectually
calculated to do it. Had such been my intention, I would have offered a resolution so broad
and vague as to alarm the t\hole community as to the amount of indemnity ; I would have
endeavored to throw the censure attached "to their losses on the present administration; I
would have opposed their claims to the wish of tue nation to repeal the internal taxes. All
these steps I would have taken to frustrate any indemnity ; and they are just the steps taken
by gentlemen who profess so strong a regard for the merchants. Let me tell those gentlemen,
until they shall pursue a far different plan, we must doubt whether they are in earnest to pay
the merchants for their losses.
"'If the public business is to be thus perpetually procrastinated. I hope the gentlemen with
whom I act Avill be firm enough, after rejecting this motion, to pursue the other business, even
to a late hour.'
" The question was then taken on Mr. Griswold's motion, and lost — Yeas, 33 ; Nays, 54."
APPENDIX F.
The instructions to Mr. Rives, our minister to France, dated July 20, 1829, contained the
following classification of the claims of our citizens against France, viz :
" First class. Claims prior to the 30th September, 1800, recognised by the 4th and 5th articles
of the treaty of that date, but either pretermitted by the treaty of the 30th of April. 1803, or,
through various causes, not included in the settlement made at Paris by the board of claims,
and remaining in force by virtue of the treaty of 1800, and the 10th article of that of 1803,
amounting, per schedule herewith, to $1,488,833 99."
Second class ; third class ; fourth class ; fifth class. All these classes relate to claims of
subsequent date, therefore require no remark.
The first class, above cited, refers to the 4th and 5th articles of the convention of 1800, and
the 10th article of the convention of 1803, which are in the following words :
" 4th. Property captured, and not yet definitively condemned, or which may be captured
before the exchange of ratifications, (contraband goods destined to an enemy's port excepted,)
shall be mutually restored on the following proofs of ownership, viz : [Here follows a form of
passport.] * * * This article shall take effect from the date of the signature of
the present convention. And if, from the date of the said signature, any property shall be
condemned contrary to the intent of the said convention, before the knowledge of this stipula
tion shall be obtained, the property so condemned shall without delay be restored or paid
for."
" ARTICLE 5th. The debts contracted by one of the two nations with individuals of the other,
or by the individuals of one with the individuals of the other, shall be paid, or the payment
may be prosecuted in the same manner as if there had been no misunderstanding between the
two States ; but tkis clause shall not extend to indemnities claimed on account of captures or con
fiscations"
The 10th article relates to the manner in which the board of commissioners shall liquidate
the claims embraced in the above cited articles, numbered 4 and 5.
46
And in subsequent instructions to Mr. Rives, dated 30th of April, 1830, the following
appears :
" The President, however, concurs in the opinion which you have expressed, that, if reduc
tions are insisted on, the claim for interest, and those originating in transactions antecedent
to the treaties of 1800 and 1803, are the classes in which concessions should be made. You
are therefore hereby invested with his authority to abandon these, or a portion of them, under
such renunciations as may be required by the French government, if it should appear that this
is made a sine qua non to the successful prosecution of the residue ; but this is not to be pro
posed except in the last resort."
Extract of a letter from Mr. Rives to our Secretary of State, dated Paris, February 18, 1831 :
" From what I have been able to learn o* 's report, it is favorable throughout to the
principle of our claims. It excludes, however, the claims of the American citizens in the
nature of debt, or of supplies, as being alien to the general scope of the controversy between
the two governments, and also American claims of every description originating previous to
the date of the Louisiana arrangement, in 1803, which has been invariably alleged by this
government to be in full satisfaction of all claims then existing."
That negotiation closed by the signature to the convention of July 4, 1831 ; a round sum of
twenty-five millions of francs being therein paid to the American government, to be distrib
uted by it at its own discretion. A board of commissioners was accordingly appointed to
decide on the validity and amount to be awarded on each claim. The board made awards in
four cases of French capture, whose origin was subsequent to the convention of 1800. Several
cases of French capture prior to said convention were also submitted to said board, but were
in every instance rejected.
The convention of 1831 being the last settlement of claims of our citizens against France,
without providing for the indemnity due for captures which were embraced by the 2d article
of the convention of 1800, it may now be safely declared as conclusive, that no part of that
class of claims has ever been paid to their proprietors, and that the United States having
applied them to the public use, are therefore clearly liable for them.
'
THIS BOOK IS DUE ON THE LAST DATE
STAMPED BELOW
AN INITIAL FINE OF 25 CENTS
WILL BE ASSESSED FOR FAILURE TO RETURN
THIS BOOK ON THE DATE DUE. THE PENALTY
WILL INCREASE TO SO CENTS ON THE FOURTH
DAY AND TO $1.OO ON THE SEVENTH DAY
OVERDUE.
NOV 25 1935
OFC 9 19<
5
NOV lo ISSfi
JUN 4 loo.
LIBRARY USE
OCT 131960
ir*T* j n
Him
LD 21-100m-7,'33
YC 50892
861311
C3
THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11