UC-NRLF 
 
 E 
 
 321 
 C32 
 
 CO 
 0- 
 CO 
 
 o 
 in 
 
A. SKETCH 
 
 OP THE 
 
 CLAIMS OF SUNDRY AMERICAN CITIZENS 
 
 ON THE 
 
 GOVERNMENT OP THE UNITED STATES 
 FOR INDEMNITY, 
 
 R DEPREDATIONS COMMITTED ON THEIR PROPERTY BY THE FRENCH 
 PRIOR TO THE 30th SEPTEMBER, 1800, 
 
 WHICH WERE ACKNOWLEDGED BY FRANCE, 
 
 ,UNTARILY SURRENDERED TO HKR BY THE UNITED STATES, FOR A VALUABLE NATIONAL 
 CONSIDERATION, IN THE CONVENTION OF THAT DATE. 
 
 BY JAMES H., C AUSTEN. 
 

A. SKETCH 
 
 CLAIMS OF SUNDRY AMERICAN CITIZENS 
 
 ON THE 
 
 GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES 
 FOR INDEMNITY, 
 
 FOR DEPREDATIONS COMMITTED ON THEIR PROPERTY BY THE FRENCH 
 PRIOR TO THE SOtli SEPTEMBER, 1800, 
 
 WHICH WERE ACKNOWLEDGED BY FRANCE, 
 
 AND 
 
 VOLUNTARILY SURRENDERED TO HER BY THE UNITED STATES, FOR A VALUABLE NATIONAL 
 CONSIDERATION, IN THE CONVENTION OP THAT DATE. 
 
 BY JAMES H. CAUSTEN. 
 
 " The claims from which France was released were admitted by France, and the 
 release was for a valuable consideration in a correspondent release of the United 
 States from certain claims upon them." MR. MADISON, Secretary of State. 
 
 " Nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." 
 CONSTITUTION OP THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 WASHINGTON, D. C. 
 
 PRINTED BY W. H. MOORE, 511 ELEVENTH ST. 
 1871. 
 
- 
 
 FRENCH SPOLIATIONS PRIOR TO 1800. 
 
 The distinctive character of these Spoliations is set forth in an 
 official report to the President by our Secretary of State, Jan 
 uary 18, 1799, in citing an official report of the Commissioners 
 of France at Saint Domingo to the Minister of Marine, in Feb 
 ruary, 1797, and printed in the Journal of the Executive .Direc 
 tory, viz : 
 
 "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 ore- 
 ceding, the administration had subsisted and individuals been enriched with the 
 proceeds of those prizes. That the decree of the 2d of July was not known to them 
 until five months afterwards But (say they) the shocking conduct of the Americans, 
 and the indirect knowledge of the intentions of our Government, made it our dutv to 
 order reprisals, even before we had received the official notice of the decree- thev 
 felicitate themselves that American vessels were daily taken; and declare thai, they 
 had learnt, by divers persons from the Continent, that the Americans were perfidious 
 corrupt, the friends of England, and that, therefore, their vessels no longer entered the 
 French ports, unless carried in by force. 
 
 fav^lTn tbe " OUndl f FiVeHundred > Pastoret -*es *e follow- 
 "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 Paulas Emilius or Cato would have praised them- 
 selves for an eminent service rendered to their country. Cruisers armed against a 
 friendly nation ! Reprisals when it is we ourselves who attack ! Reprisals Ss 
 nation hat has not taken a single vessel of ours ! Riches acquired by P the confiscatioS 
 of the ships of a people to whom we are united by treaties, and whom no declara o 
 ?heTe few w oTds ^ ^ ^^ disc urse of the a S ent3 y be reduced to 
 
 Having nothing wherewith to buy, I seize; I make myself amends for the property 
 which want, by the piracy which enriches me; and then I slander those whom I 
 have pillaged. This is robbery, justified by selfishness and calumny." 
 
 )-See Document 102, No. 293 in Senate Document of 1st 
 session 19th Congress, being a message from the President to 
 the Senate of May 20, 1826, with the report of the Secretary of 
 State, Mr. Clay, and a mass of documents. As I shall frequently 
 refer to it, it will be as document 102, and number of the partic 
 ular document therein. 
 
 The conduct and vindictive spirit thus displayed at the port of 
 Saint Domingo was, in like manner of ferocity practised, not 
 only in all the other French and Spanish Colonies, but also 
 
 M92883 
 
 in 
 
their respective seaports in Europe and elsewhere ; and resulted 
 in the capture of more than fifteen hundred Amerieanvessels not 
 one of which was legally captured, as the provisions of our commer 
 cial treaty with France of 1778, will clearly establish. 
 
 On referring to said treaty, the reader will be surprised at the 
 magnanimity and justice that dictated it; and that the purity of 
 purpose and profound wisdom it manifests, remain a monument 
 of excellence, without a rival, to this day. The material stipula 
 tions are 
 
 "Article 6. Vessels and effects belonging to citizens of the United States, to be 
 protected in French ports and by French war vessels whilst in company. 
 
 "Article 13. Vessels with contraband goods if the contraband goods be delivered 
 to the captor, he. shall forthwith discharge the ship, and not hinder her by any 
 means, freely to prosecute the voyage on which she is bound. 
 
 " Article 17. Shall sail with their ships with all security, no distinction being made 
 who are the owners of their lading, from one enemy port to any other enemy port, 
 that free ships give freedom to goods on board, even of enemy s goods, and so of 
 persons. 
 
 " Article 27. In order to avoid any disorder to merchant ships met at sea by armed 
 vessels, the latter shall remain out of cannon shot, and may enter her by two or 
 three men only, and when her passport shall be exhibited, she shall be at liberty to 
 pursue her voyage, so as it shall not be lawful to molest or search her in any manner, 
 or to give her chase or force her to quit her intended course. 
 
 " Article 28. Cargoes once put on board, not subject to further visitation." Laws 
 V. States, vol. I, p. 74. 
 
 It is thus clearly established that France had no right to cap 
 ture American vessels, under any circumstances whatever ; and that 
 all the fifteen hundred vessels she did capture, as before men 
 tioned, were illegal under said treaty; and no less illegal under 
 international law. 
 
 The reader would naturally inquire, if France, our acknowledged 
 kind protector, friend, and ally, had no right to capture Ameri 
 can vessels, why did she do so ? 
 
 This question must be answered, and the proper time to answer 
 it has arrived. Although more than forty reports of committees 
 of the two Houses of Congress have been made all in favor of 
 the claimants, not one of them has ventured to answer this ques 
 tion in full. The reader will discover the motive for this silence 
 on his further reading. 
 
 The early French captures, being provision vessels were paid 
 for, and assurance given for future like payments, but proved 
 illusory, and were speedily followed by vindictive vengeance, indis 
 criminate capture, and instant condemnation. 
 
 These early captures, in 1793, were made under absolute ne 
 cessity ; the crops in France having failed, a frightful civil war 
 
raged in the very bosom of France, and all Europe in arms against 
 her, as punishment for beheading her King to starve the people 
 of France was the diabolical purpose : there was another no less 
 prominent purpose, viz: Crowned heads against Republics. 
 
 The wonderful coalition against France, made in the heat of 
 active war between England and France, was formed in about 
 six months, in which time England had contracted twenty-three 
 separate treaties with allies ; the character of which is seen in 
 that one with Prussia, of July 14, 1793, the 3d article of which is 
 as follows : 
 
 "ARTICLES. The high contracting parties having already taken the resolution to 
 shut all their ports against French ships, and not to permit the exportation, in any 
 cases, from their said ports for France, of any military or naval stores, or corn, grain, 
 salt, meat, or other provisions, they reciprocally engage to continue these meas 
 ures, and promise to employ all other means which shall be in their power, for injur 
 ing the commerce of France, and for bringing her by such means to just conditions 
 of peace." 
 
 The following instructions were given by Russia to her Admi 
 ral Tebithe Goff, conformably to her treaty with England, of 
 March, 1793, viz : 
 
 "We have ordered a fleet of twenty-five sail of the line and frigates, to be equipped 
 for four months and under your command. The principal duty of our naval arma 
 ment consists in what follows : 
 
 "We are bound according to our stipulations with His Majesty, the King of Great 
 Britain, to endeavor to prevent these French, who persist in their rebellion, from re 
 ceiving any supplies of which they may be in need. The hostile measures employed 
 against them, are not strictly conformable to the natural laws of war, when it unfor 
 tunately takes place between nations under lawful Government ; but as these meas 
 ures are taken against those arrent villians, who have overturned all duties observed 
 towards God, the laws, and the Government, who have even gone so far as to take 
 the life of their own sovereign the means of punishing those villians ought in justice 
 to be employed in such a manner as to accelerate and insure success in so salutary an 
 affair. 
 
 " We have made representations to the Courts of Sweden and Denmark, but our just 
 demands have not been satisfactorily answered ; wherefore, we have declared to them, 
 that we cannot see with indifference provisions or stores sent to France, which serve 
 to nourish the rebels. 
 
 "By this you will clearly see our will and our intentions, and we order you to seize 
 all those French vessels you may meet with, and to send back to their own ports all 
 neutral vessels bound for France." 
 
 The British orders in council went much further than the above, 
 and authorized the capture of neutral vessels with provisions 
 bound to France. Sweden and Denmark remonstrated success 
 fully against said orders in council. The United States also re 
 monstrated, but in vain ; and more aggressive other like orders 
 soon followed. 
 
 The American vessels with provisions bound for and to relieve 
 starving France, to the number of 478 (as reported in Trumbuli s 
 Reminiscences,) were captured and their cargoes confiscated by 
 
the British, the vessels being at first released, but thereafter con 
 fiscated. 
 
 The provisions so captured glutted the British market so far 
 that a barrel of ilour would only command eight dollars there ? 
 while in a French port it would command forty dollars. 
 
 In the mean time, open war had been declared by both Eng~ 
 land and France, each against the other ; when the capture of 
 American vessels was greatly increased by each of them. The 
 losses of our merchants were very great, and our Government 
 greatly excited, not only because of the great loss of property, but 
 also at the loss of revenue from imports ; and above all, the im 
 minent hazard of being drawn into the war then in full force be 
 tween England and France. 
 
 On the 22d of April, 1793, President Washington, of his own 
 impulse, issued a proclamation of neutrality, which states : 
 
 "Whereas it appears that a state of war exists between Austria, Prussia, Sardinia, 
 Great Britain, and the United Netherlands, of the one part, and France on the other ; 
 and the duty and interest of the United States require that they should with sincerity 
 and good faith adopt and pursue a conduct friendly and impartial toward the 
 belligerent Powers." Doc. 102, No. 150. 
 
 While no man will question the purity of motive that dictated 
 this proclamation, no man can with truth deny that it was the 
 starting point of all the difficulties we had with France that fol 
 lowed in its train. Its first effect in our own country was, to 
 divide our people into two great political parties, perhaps of equal 
 numbers and activity, which disturbed our councils for half a 
 century, and is not extinguished to this day. To judge of its 
 true character, the reader should bear in mind that it was made 
 during a mighty war, in which all the numerous parties to it were 
 our friends, except and against our ally France, then in a starving 
 condition. The said proclamation directs " a conduct friendly 
 and impartial toward the belligerent powers;" but not a saving 
 word in favor of the exclusive rights due to our ally France by 
 our treaty with her. 
 
 How far the conduct just prescribed conflicts with our treaties 
 with France, will appear on citing their provisions. First, the 
 treaty of alliance of 1778 : 
 
 u ARTICLE I. In case of war between France and Great Britain, the cause to be com 
 mon. 
 
 "ARTICLE II. The two parties guarantee mutually from the present time, andforever, 
 against all other powers, to wit, the United States to His most Christain Majesty, the 
 present possessions of the Crown of France in America, as well as those which it may 
 acquire by the future treaty of peace." Laws U. States, Vol 1, p. 05. 
 
The French Islands were captured by the English without our 
 resistance or even remonstrance, but directly the contrary; we 
 permitted the English to obtain in our ports military supplies, in 
 cluding our vessels to transport them to the Islands where they 
 were successfully employed in the capture; of this France com 
 plained bitterly. 
 
 Our guarantee of these Islands being forever would probably 
 imply an obligation to redeem them at whatever cost, and then 
 resume the guarantee. 
 
 On many occasions the British Minister complained of our 
 construction or application of our treaties with France; which 
 induced Mr. Jefferson to address a letter to Mr. Madison, dated 
 April 3, 1794, in which is the following: 
 
 * * " 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 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." Jefferson s Works, Vol 3, p. 303. 
 
 On the 18th Septemper, 1793, Mr. Genet, the French Minister, 
 complained to our Secretary of State, as follows : 
 
 " That the Secretary of War, to whom I communicated 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 possessions guaranteed 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." 
 
 The President s message to Congress of Feb y 4, 1791, states 
 that authority had been given to hold informally conferences with 
 the British Ministers, to learn their disposition as to the entering 
 into a commercial treaty with the United States. Mr. Morris had 
 charge of this duty, and in his letter to the President, dated Lon 
 don, Sept. 18, 1790, after detailing much conversation with His 
 Majesty s principal Secretary of State, he adds : 
 
 " I proceeded therefore a little further and prayed him to consider that, ia a war 
 between Great Britain and the House of Bourbon (a thing which must happen at 
 some time) we can give the West India Islands to whom we please, without engaging m tkc 
 war ourselves ; and our conduct must be governed by our interest. He acknowledged that 
 this was naturally to be expected ; and it seemed from his manner that the same thing 
 had been represented before, but not in such strong colors." Waite s American State 
 Papers, vol. 10, p. 97. (Confidential.) 
 
 On the 6th of May, 1794, Mr. John Jay, while Secretary of State, 
 had been appointed Minister Extraordinary to Great Britain Ms 
 instructions were very extended and minute and contained the 
 
 following : 
 
 " Provisions never to be contraband, except in the strongest possible ease, as the 
 blockade of a port, or if attainable, by abolishing; contraband altogether. 
 
8 
 
 " 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 Doc. 
 102, No. 63." 
 
 Before, while he was negotiating a treaty, and after it was con 
 cluded, the British orders iii council to seize onr provision vessels 
 bound to starving France, were in full operation. The treaty 
 he made, granted the right to so capture on payment of ten per 
 cent, advance on the invoice cost of the cargoes, but this advance 
 was soon overruled by other orders in council, which directed the 
 capture and confiscation. 
 
 This treaty contained 29 articles, most of which were unsatis 
 factory to the United States, but, after several modifications by 
 negotiation, was eventually ratified by an extreme close vote in 
 each House of Congress. Two only of its articles will be here re 
 ferred to, viz : 
 
 " ARTICLE 18. Legalizes the capture of provision vessels on certain conditions 
 which were not complied with. 
 
 "ARTICLE 25. Prizes made by either party shall be free to enter the ports of the 
 other. 
 
 " No shelter or refuge shall be given in their ports to such as have made a prize 
 upon the subjects or citizens of either of the said parties." 
 
 With regard to said 18th article, the following will suffice, viz : 
 Our Secretary of State, Mr. Randolph, on the 14th July, 1795, in 
 his letter to Mr. Morris, our Minister at Paris, says : 
 
 "The treaty of Mr. Jay s 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." Doc. 102, No. 61. 
 
 And, in the instructions to our Minister to England, Mr. John 
 Q. Adams, who was charged with the exchange of the ratification 
 of said treaty, is the following: 
 
 " But, if after every precedent effort, you find that it (the British orders to capture 
 provision vessels) cannot be removed, its continuance is not to be an obstacle to 
 the exchange of ratifications." Doc. 102, No. 206. 
 
 The 25th article of the treaty need not be here remarked on, 
 since it is so clear and complete a violation of the letter and spirit 
 of our treaty with France, that no man can mistake it. Our treaty 
 with France gave her the exclusive use of our ports, to the exclu 
 sion of all other powers and here, while our ally France and 
 England are engaged in vindictive war upon each other, we de 
 liberately take from France her exclusive right, and without con 
 sideration, bestow it on her enemy, during war. England had 
 already captured all the French Islands we had guarantied, with- 
 
9 
 
 out aid or remonstrance on our part; and now, by this treaty with 
 her enemy, France was deprived of all refuge for her war vessels 
 and their prizes in this hemisphere. 
 
 Mr. Hammond, the British Minister, had made frequent com 
 plaint against the use of our ports by the French vessels of war ; 
 to which Mr. Jefferson responded on the 9th September, 1793, 
 as follows: 
 
 " And though the admission of the prizes and privateers of France is exclusive, yet 
 it is the effect of treaty made a long ago for valuable considerations, not with a view 
 to present circumstances, nor against any nation in particular, but all in general; 
 and may, therefore, be faithfully observed without offence to any ; and we mean faith 
 fully to observe it." Doc. 102, No. 133. 
 
 Mr. Jefferson here manifested the true spirit in maintaining 
 our treaty with France, but, how far he was entitled to commen 
 dation for so doing, will be seen in the following letter from him 
 to the same British Minister, of only four days prior date, viz: 
 September 5, 1793 : 
 
 " I am honored with yours of August 30th ; mine of the 7th of same month assured 
 you that measures were taking for excluding from all furthey asylum in our ports 
 [French] vessels armed in them to cruise on nations with which we were at peace, and 
 for the restoration of the prizes the Lovely Lass, Prince William Henry, and the Jane 
 of Dublin ; and that should the measures for restoration fail in their effect, the Presi 
 dent considered ir as incumbent on the United States to make compensation for the 
 vessels." Doc. 102, No. 131. 
 
 * * -x- * * 
 
 The exclusion here proffered is of French armed vessels and 
 their prizes, which France had freely enjoyed with our entire 
 assent, and which France asserted was her right by treaty. 
 
 The British Government regarded Mr. Jefferson s letter last 
 cited, of so great importance as to cause it to be incorporated into 
 and made part of Mr. Jay s treaty ; in virtue of which, she claimed 
 and received a large indemnity from the United States. The 
 French Government complained of said letter as being unfriendly 
 to it. 
 
 Under Mr. Jay s treaty the British Government claimed and 
 received, at the cost of the United States, a further indemnity of 
 600,000 poundlPiH&tling, about three millions of dollars, for im 
 peded debts due to her subjects during our Revolutionary war. 
 
 And under the same treaty awards were made and paid by the 
 British Government to the merchants of the United States, as 
 indemnity for our captured vessels, to the amount of $11,650,000, 
 as stated in the report of Mr. Trumbull, one of the American 
 Commissioners, in his volume of Reminiscences, page 238. 
 
 There were strange things done by our Government in those 
 
10 
 
 days ; but we must not overlook our then infancy and inexperi 
 ence, while threatened on every side with surrounding difficulties, 
 which led Mr. Jefferson, as is understood, to withdraw from the 
 then Administration. 
 
 Soon after Mr. Jay s treaty was ratified our Secretary of State, 
 Mr. Pickering, in his report to the President of July 15, 1798, 
 says : 
 
 " Mr. Adet [the French Minister] 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 26th article of the British treaty, Mr. Jay s, having 
 explicity forbidden the arming of [French] 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 collector to conform to the restriction contained in 
 that [article of the British treaty] as the law of the land. This was the more neces 
 sary, as formerly the collectors were instructed to admit to an entry and sale the prizes 
 brought into our ports" [by the French.] 
 
 The publication of Mr. Jay s treaty, in 1796, produced great 
 excitement throughout our whole country. Congress by resolu 
 tion called on the President for a copy of the instructions to Mr. 
 Jay, which was voted after a long and heated discussion. The 
 President refused to furnish a copy, most happily, as its publicity 
 would, most probably, have led France to instantly declare war 
 against us. The instructions contained, as before mentioned, the 
 proffer to England of the exclusive use of our ports, notwith 
 standing our previous pledge of them to France. 
 
 On the 12th November, 1794, our Secretary of State, Mr. Ran 
 dolph, thus wrote to Mr. Jay : 
 
 " If the prohition to sell French prizes should commence sooner than the termina 
 tion of the war [then existing between England and France] we shall be placed in 
 very great difficulties ; and I am pleased to observe that you are impressed with the 
 force of this idea." Doc. 102, No. 64. 
 
 The promulgation of Mr. Jay s treaty, in 1796, opened instantly 
 the vials of wrath and vengeance of France against the United 
 States. She called us perfidious, and accused us of having joined 
 the great coalition to starve the people of France, and, in conse 
 quence thereof, she ordered the ocean to be of American 
 vessels by privateers commissioned for that object, and loaned 
 her public vessels to privateersrnen for a share of the booty they 
 could thus acquire. As before mentioned, more than fifteen hun 
 dred American vessels were thus captured, being the identical 
 vessels for which the bill for the relief of their owners is now 
 pending before Congress, the United States having for their own 
 benefit bartered the aggregate claims of their owners to indem- 
 
11 
 
 nity, to France, for a release of our Government from the onerous 
 stipulations of the treaties with France, of 1778, and the incurred 
 liabilities under them. This release of the United States cannot 
 be computed in money, because it was inestimable; but it was at 
 least equivalent in value to the sum of the captured vessels, and 
 was so considered in the bargain made, which was of our own 
 seeking, and therefore unquestionable. But the owners of said 
 vessels never received a dollar for their vessels to this day. 
 
 At an early period, August 27, 1793, our Secretary of State, 
 Mr. Jefferson, published the following circular letter to the mer 
 chants of the United States : 
 
 To Gentlemen : 
 
 " Complaint having been made to the Government of the United States, of some in 
 stances of unjustifiable vexation and spoliation on our merchant vessels by the pri 
 vateers of the Powers at war, [England and France,] and it being possible that other 
 instances may have happened of which no information has been given to the Govern 
 ment; I have it in charge from the President, to assure the merchants of the United 
 States concerned 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, contrary to 
 the law of nations, or to existing treaties ; and that, on their forwarding hither well- 
 authenticated evidence of the same, proper proceedings will be adopted for their re 
 lief." Doc. 102, No. 130. 
 
 Our Government thus volunteered its agency in behalf of the 
 claimants, and took in charge the evidence of their losses. The 
 evidence was by it forwarded to France for collection ; but, instead 
 of collection for the claimants, was bartered to France in payment 
 of its own debt ; and the evidence of the barter was placed in the 
 secret files of the State Department, and was so concealed for 
 more than a quarter of a century. The evidence of loss so placed 
 in the charge of our Government has not been restored to the 
 claimants, nor even a record kept of that sent by it to France ; 
 nor has our Government ever accounted to the claimants for the 
 agency so conferred on it. 
 
 It will be observed that this Government agency embraced 
 claims against both England and France ; they were of about 
 equal amount; and those claims sent to England produced to the 
 claimants, as before noted, the sum of $11,650,000 ; while those 
 sent to France produced nothing, as the whole was absorbed in 
 payment, by barter, of the public debt to France. 
 
 The violent depredations of France were continued with in 
 creased violence and beyond endurance, and the United States 
 prepared for defence, if not for open war, which appeared almost 
 inevitable, but did not take place. 
 
12 
 
 Our Government resolved on negotiation, and accordingly, on 
 the 15th July, 1797, appointed Charles 0. Pinckney, John Mar 
 shall, and Elbridge Gerry, as envoys extraordinary to the French 
 Republic. Their instructions were voluminous, and contained 
 the following : 
 
 "Finally, the great object of the Government being to do justice to France and her 
 citizens, if in anything we have injured them ; to obtain justice for the multiplied 
 injuries they have committed against us ; and to preserve peace ; your style and man 
 ner of proceeding will be such as shall most directly tend to secure these objects." 
 Doc. 102, No. 307. 
 
 France was not in a temper for reconciliation : and the mission 
 failed to complete anything ; they did obtain, however, during 
 their negotiation, the following proposition, dated November 8, 
 1797, viz : 
 
 "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 rela 
 tive to the prizes made on them by the French privateers. 
 
 " The American Envoys will engage that their Government shall pay the indemni 
 fications, or the amount of the sums already decreed to American creditors of the 
 French Republic, and those which shall be adjudged to the claimants by the Commis 
 sioners. 
 
 " This payment shall be made under the name of an advance to the French Repub 
 lic, who will repay it in a time and manner to be agreed on." Doc. 102, No. 310. 
 
 France had declared her finance exhausted by war, and there 
 fore could not pay us promptly for the spoliations ; hence, she 
 offered the above proposition. But the American Envoys refused 
 to sanction it, as being beyond their instructions, but, particu 
 larly, because England would regard it as a covert aid to France 
 during the existing war. Doc. 102, No. 319. 
 
 Mr. Jefferson was much dissatisfied with the condition of our 
 public affairs with England and France. In his letter of June 
 17, 1797, to Colonel Burr, he says: 
 
 "We have received a report that the French Directory has proposed a declaration 
 of war against the United States to the Council of Ancients, who have rejected it. 
 Thus we see two nations who love one another affectionately, brought, by the ill 
 temper of their Executive Administrations, to the very brink of a necessity to imbrue 
 their hands in the blood of each other." Jefferson s Works, vol. 3, p. 358. 
 
 And on the 20th June, 1797, Mr. Jefferson wrote to Elbridge 
 Gerry, who was just confirmed as one of the Envoys to Erance, 
 viz : 
 
 " It was with infinite joy to me, that you were yesterday announced to the Senate 
 as Envoy Extraordinary jointly with General Pinckney and Mr. Marshall, to the 
 French Republic. It gives me certain assurances that there would be a preponder 
 ance in the mission sincerely disposed to be at peace with the French Government 
 and nation. Peace is undoubtedly at present the first object of our nation. Interest 
 and honor are also national considerations. But interest, duly weighed, is in favor 
 of peace even at the expense of spoliations past and future ; and honor cannot now 
 be an object. The insults and injuries committed on us by both the belligerents par- 
 
13 
 
 ties, from the beginning of 1793 to this day, and still continuing, cannot be wiped off 
 by engaging in war with one of them. Our countrymen have divided themselves by 
 such strong affections to tho French and the English, that nothing will secure us in 
 ternally but a divorce from both nations." Jefferson s Works, vol. 3, p. 359. 
 
 That mission proved a failure. 
 
 On the 22d October, 1799, a second mission to France was 
 appointed, viz : Oliver Ellsworth, William K. Davie, and William 
 Vans Murray, whose instructions contained, viz : 
 
 "And you know that, instead of relief, instead of justice, instead of indemnity for 
 past wrongs, our very moderate demands have been immediately followed by new ag 
 gressions and more extended depredations; while our Ministers, seeking redress and 
 reconciliation, have been refused a reception, treated with indignities, and finally 
 driven from its territories. 
 
 "This conduct of the French Republic would well have justified an immediate de 
 claration 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. 
 
 " 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 on France 
 to pay or secure payment of the sums which shall be awarded. 
 
 First, at the opening of the negotiation, you will inform 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 cap 
 tures or condemnations of their vessels or other property, under color of authority or 
 commissions from the French Government or its agents." Doc. 102, No. 346. 
 
 The elaborate discussions at Paris that followed extended to the 
 80th of September, 1800, during all which, the only point at 
 issue was with respect to the national claim of France as to the 
 continuous and uninterrupted operation of the treaties of 1778, 
 and the liabilities due to France under them the right of our 
 citizens to indemnity for spoliations on their vessels was promptly 
 and uniformly conceded on both sides throughout the entire 
 negotiation. On the llth August, 1800, the French negotiators, 
 Messrs. Joseph Bonaparte, Fleurieu, and Hoedereur thus wrote 
 to our Envoys: 
 
 "In the first place, they will insist upon the principle already laid down in their 
 former note, viz: that the treaties which united France with the United States are 
 not broken; that even war could not have broken them ; but that the state of mis 
 understanding, which has existed for some time between Franc e and the United 
 States, by the act of some agents, rather than the will of the respe ctive Governments 
 has not been a state of war, at least ou the side of France. 
 
 u lf the reflections presented on th s subject in the note of the French Ministers, of 
 the 5th 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 recognize anew, is, that the par 
 ties on both sides ought to be compensated for the damages which have been mutu 
 ally caused by their misunderstanding. Thus, the first proposition of the Ministers of 
 France is, to stipulate a full and entire recognition of the treaties, and the reciprocal 
 engagement of compensation for damages resulting on both sides from their in 
 fraction." 
 
14 
 
 At the foot of that communication the French Minister pre 
 sented a modified or alternative proposition, viz : 
 
 " Either the ancient treaties with the privileges resulting from priority, and the 
 stipulation of reciprocal indemnities, 
 
 " Or a new treaty, assuring equality without indemnity." 
 
 This modified proposition greatly embarrassed the Envoys, as 
 they were expressly forbidden to revive the old treaties in whole 
 or in part: nor could they stipulate equality to France, since we 
 had already given the exclusive right to Great Britain, which we 
 could not recall. 
 
 The French Ministers were inflexible, however ; and the En 
 voys offered, in vain, large sums of money to release us from cer 
 tain articles of the old treaties the guarantee of the French 
 islands, and the use of our ports. The French Ministers con 
 sented to accept often millions of livres for the extinction of the 
 guaranty, but declared that no consideration whatever could lead 
 to release the United States from the use of our ports, as such 
 would be in effect a surrender of her flag to Great Britain. 
 
 In the progress of the negotiation very many propositions on 
 either side were discussed, all of which recognized and provided 
 for the Spoliation claims ; but the propositions of the French 
 Commissioners uniformly insisted that the old treaties remained 
 in full force, and should be so regarded. 
 
 This was a dead lock. The Envoys then proposed to insert in 
 the new treaty an article that should recognize the claims on both 
 sides, and refer their decision to a future convenient time. This 
 proposition was accepted by the French Minister, and became 
 the second article of the new treaty, which was afterwards con 
 cluded as a Convention the second article being 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 [Consular] Convention of November 14, 
 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 
 those points, the said treaties and convention shall have no operation, and the rela 
 tions of the two countries shall be as follows:" [Here follows .articles to No. 29.] 
 Laws U. S., vol. 1, p. 115. 
 
 That second article when ratified by the First Consul, as was 
 promptly done, was virtually a French National Bond pledged 
 in favor of the Spoliation claims, and although not specified as to 
 amount, may be regarded as a liquidated acknowledged debt, 
 since the French negotiators had uniformly acknowledged the 
 liability of France for them. 
 
15 
 
 That bond was placed in charge of our Government, as trustee 
 of the claimants, for collection. It was indeed a long bond, but 
 that did not lesson its validity, nor lesson the evidence of its 
 validity, to wit : the oft repeated admission of the French negoti 
 ators, which is matter of permanent record. 
 
 T he United States, without the assent or knowledge of the 
 claimants, paid their public debt to France with said bond. Can 
 anyone doubt, therefore, as to which of the two Governments is 
 now responsible for the individual claims of our citizens thus 
 taken for the public use ? The thus taking and use of the private 
 property in said bond was, nevertheless, an act of profound wis 
 dom. A favorable event occurred which enabled the United States 
 to pay her debt to France, and they did so, by the use of said bond, 
 at the sole cost of the claimants. 
 
 On the convention being laid before the Senate they struck out 
 the second article without stating the reason for so doing, and 
 sent it back to Paris for confirmation. There is nothing extant 
 to show the motive for striking out that article, but it is self-evi 
 dent that it was to release the United States, so earnestly and long 
 desired, from our treaty engagements with France, that second 
 article being the only ligament that held us to them. 
 
 On the amended convention being laid before the First Consul, 
 he expressed surprise and dissatisfaction, as the second article 
 was inserted at the desire of the American Envoys, his Chief 
 Minister, Tallyrand, having reported to him, however, that the 
 simple nullification of that article would not only lose the old 
 treaties to France, but would leave her still liable for the Ameri 
 can Spoliation claims under international law. 
 
 On being so advised, the First Consul ratified the modified con 
 vention in the following manner: 
 
 I "Bonaparte, First Consul, in the name of the French people * * * approves the 
 above Convention in all and each of the articles. * * * The Government of th 
 United States having added to its ratification, that the Convent on shall Ten force 
 
 of thepTl K 61g vr JearS "^ haVlng miUed the Sec nd ^ticle, the Government 
 
 tl ?ti Fre " c l\? e P l lbhc consents to accept, ratify, and confirm the above Conventio 
 with the addition, importing that the Convention shall be in fore for the space of 
 eight years, and with the retrenchment of the second article Prlv ided that by /A* 
 
 ^^^ 
 
 This conditional ratification being submitted to the Senate was 
 confirmed as "fully ratified;" and was so returned to the Presi 
 dent, and by his proclamation was promulgated on the 31st July 
 1801, as the supreme law of the land; the original convention 
 
16 
 
 was confirmed and signed by John Adams, President, and John 
 Marshall, Secretary of State, and the final ratification was signed 
 by Thomas Jeflerson, President, and James Madison, Secretary 
 of State. [Laws of United States, vol. 1, p. 132-4.] 
 
 If the Senate had not ratified the condition of the First Consul 
 the Spoliation claims would have remained as due from France, 
 and been maintained against her by both the old treaties and the 
 law of nations. 
 
 And if the United States could have obtained from France a 
 simple release from or nullification of the old treaties as they 
 most earnestly sought it could only operate prospectively from 
 its date, and thus have left the spoliation claims as still due from 
 France. 
 
 But when the mutual claims were indissoluble united, the French 
 national claim on one side, and the spoliation claims of our citi 
 zens on the other side; and our Government, in order to rid itself 
 of said French national claim, surrendered or bartered the private 
 claims of our citizens, as a consideration therefor, who can doubt 
 that it is the very case for which the Constitution provides, that 
 property of individuals " shall not be taken for the public use 
 without just compensation." 
 
 The value of the spoliation claims was infinitely less than that 
 of the old treaties ; nevertheless, they were considered and treated 
 in the bargain as of equal value by the two Governments. This 
 barter was made by the Senate (not by our Envoys) first, in strik 
 ing out the second article of the convention, and then, in accept 
 ing the First Consul s explanatory condition thereto. It was the 
 Senate and President Jeflerson, (and his Secretary of State, Mr. 
 Madison,) the treaty-making power, that consummated the bar 
 gain. 
 
 Mr. Jefferson, in his letter of December 18. 1801, to Mr. R. E. 
 Livingston, our Minister at Paris, says: 
 
 " I am authorized to say that the President does not regard the declaratory clause 
 [of the First Consul] as more than a legitimate inference from the rejection by the 
 Senate of the second article, and that he is disposed to go on with the measures due 
 under the compact to the French Republic." Doc. 102, No. 446. 
 
 And Mr. Madison, Secretary of State, in his instructions to 
 Mr. Charles Pinckney, our Minister to Spain, dated February 6, 
 1804, says: 
 
 " The claims from which Frauce was released [under the Convention of 18CO] were 
 admitted by France, and the release was for a valuable consideration in a corresponding 
 
17 
 
 release of the United States from certain claims on them. The claims we make on 
 Spain were never admitted by France, nor made on France by the United States; 
 they made, therefore, no part of the bargain with her, [Spain,] and could not be in 
 cluded in the release." Doc. 102, No. 506. 
 
 On the 26th May, 1826, President John Q. Adams adopted, 
 and suhmitted to the Senate, a report of the Secretary of State, 
 Mr. Clay accompanied with a mass of documents, herein referred 
 to as document No. 102 in which Mr. Clay says : 
 
 * * * The French ratification being thus conditional was nevertheless changed 
 against that of the United States, at Paris, on the same 31st of July, 1801. The 
 President of the United States considering it necessary again to submit the Conven 
 tion, in this State, to the Senate, on the 19th of December, 1801, it was resolved by 
 the Senate that they considered the 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 to law and existing treaties. Those of 
 France sprung from the treaty of Alliance of the 6th February, 1778, the treaty of 
 Amity and Commerce of the same date, and the [Consular] Convention of November 
 14, 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 ot the obligations and 
 indemnities so reciprocally renounced, can only be a 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 1 1th article of the treaty of Alliance 
 of the 6th of February, 1778, by which they were bound forever to guarantee from 
 that time the then possessions 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 were conquered at, or not long after, the 
 exchange of ratifications of the Convention of September, 1800, by the arms of Great 
 Britain, from France. 
 
 The fifth article of the amendments to the Constitution provide " Nor shall private 
 property be taken for public use without just compensation." If the indemnities to 
 which citizens of the United States were entitled for French spoliations, prior to the 
 30th 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 indem 
 nities 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 considerations do not require 
 some compensation to be made to the claimants." Doc. 102, page 7. 
 
 Copy of a letter from Ex-President John Adarns to James H. 
 Causten, dated Quincy, May 9, 1823. 
 
 " I have received your letter of 26th April. You are entirely mistaken in supposing 
 that the second article of the Convention with France of 1800 was stricken out at my 
 desire or information. On the contrary, I was desirous of retaining it ; so much so 
 that I sent a message to the Senate, and explicitly told them it would have been been 
 more agreeable to my inclination to have ratified the Convention as it stood. 
 
 * * "To expbun all the mysteries of that period never was, and never will be in 
 my power. It would require volumes to give a simple history of it. All I can say 
 of it is, there was war between St. Dennis and St. George. Each had an army in 
 America, constantly skirmishing with each other, and both of them constantly stabbing 
 me with lancets, spikes, and spears. My sole object was to preserve the peace and 
 neutrality of the country, and that, 1 thank God, I obtained, at the loss of my power 
 and fame with both sides." 
 
18 
 
 Copy of a letter from ex-Senator William C. Preston to James 
 H. Causton, dated Columbia, South Carolina, January 29, 1844: 
 
 "I have this moment received your letter of the 2 Istinstant, inquiring of me con 
 cerning Judge Marshall s opinions on the claims for French spoliations anterior to 
 1800. 
 
 " When that subject was under consideration in the Senate some years since, as a 
 member of the committee to which it had been given in charge, I bestowed no little 
 pains in the investigation of it, and, as 1 believe it will happen to everyone that does 
 so, I became thoroughly satisfied of the justness of the claims. While they were 
 under discussion in the Senate they happened to be the subject of conversation be 
 tween Mr. Leigh, Mr. Calhoun and myself, one evening * in our mess parlor, when 
 Judge Marshall stepped in, and having overheard or been informed of the subject of 
 the conversation, asked to share in it, saying that, having been connected with the 
 events of that period, and conversant with the circumstances under which the claims 
 arose, [he was one of the Envoys to France in 179*7, and Secretary of State when the 
 convention of 1800 was finally ratified,] he was, from his own knowledge, satisfied 
 that there was the strongest obligation on the Government to compensate the suffer 
 ing by the French spoliations. He gave a succinct statement of the leading facts, 
 and the principles of law applicable to them, in so precise and lucid a way that it 
 seemed to me a termination of the argument by a judicial decision. It was apparent 
 from his manner that he felt an interest in the inculcation of his opinion, arising 
 from deep conviction of its truth. I most heartily desire that the long delayed and 
 very inadequate justice now proposed to these unfortunate claimants will be made 
 this session." 
 
 Extract of a letter from ex-Secretary of State, Timothy Pick 
 ering, to James H. Causteu, dated Salem," November 19, 1824, 
 which, after stating the early proceeding seriatum, concludes as 
 follows : 
 
 "Thus the Government bartered the just claims of our merchants to obtain a relin- 
 quishment of the French claim for a restoration of the old treaties, especially the 
 burdensome treaty of Alliance, by which we were bound to guarantee to France her 
 West India territories in America. In this view of the case it would seem that the 
 merchants have an equitable claim for indemnity from the United States." 
 
 Notwithstanding the great length of the recorded proceedings 
 in the Corps Legislatif at Paris, on the final ratification of the 
 
 * The visit here referred to took place on the evening of the very day on which a bill for the relief of 
 the French spoliation claimants had been discussed in the Senate throughout the entire day. in the 
 presence of Chief Justice Marshall, who had, to the surprise of the whole Senate, spent the whole days 
 sitting in attentively listening to the several elaborate speeches on said bill, more particularly on Mr. 
 Calhouu s speech in opposition, all the pros and cons being freely canvassed. 
 
 The meeting in the evening and the conference with Judge Marshall, as stated in Senator Preston s 
 letter, wus fully confirmed by Mr. Lambert, late Mayor of Richmond, who was present at the meeting, 
 and who communicated its proceedings to the writer of this note on the following morning, adding, 
 however, that Judge Marshall stated that the object of his visit was to correct Mr. Calhoun as to the 
 facts set forth in his said opposition speech ; and that then followed the lucid explanation of the Judge, 
 as stated by Mr. Preston. 
 
 Subsequently, Senator John M. Clayton wrote to Senator B. W. Leigh, who was present on that even 
 ing, but was then at Richmond, requesting him to state his recollection of what took place at said meet 
 ing, and in answer thereto, Mr. Leigh replied, viz : 
 
 " * * * I have then to state that the late Chief Justice Marshall did. in a conversation 
 with me and some two or three others, while a bill was before the Senate for the payment of the claims 
 for French spoliation prior to 18uO, express an opinion, distinctly and positively, that the United States 
 ought to make provision for the payment of these claims ; and the opinion made the more impression on 
 my mind since it was contrary to an idea which I had taken up on the subject, and it determined me to 
 e xamiue it with greater care and discrimination than I had before given to it. You may make what use 
 I this letter you please. 
 
 " The President s veto of this claim appeared to me very strange. Is a President authorized to veto 
 every bill for which he himself would not vote ? It he is, he is the whole Legislature whenever there is 
 not a majority of two-thirds of both Houses of Congress. B. W. LEIGH. 
 
 " To the Hon. John M. Clayton." 
 
19 
 
 convention of 1800, it is proper to give some notice of it here, 
 viz: 
 
 "In 1792, when war broke out between France and England, the United States 
 found themselves embarrassed between their engagements towards the one, and the 
 power of the other. Difficulties sprang up as to the interpretation of the treaties ; 
 discussions became embittered by the crimination on one side and the other, which 
 the distance and difficulty of communication did not permit of being dissipated. A 
 treaty of Amity and Commerce, concluded during these circumstances, between the 
 United States and England, was regarded by France as a proof of partiality in favor 
 of her enemy. The commercial agents of the Republic gave rise to and excited some 
 irritation ; the commerce of the United States was disturbed by French privateers ; 
 several captures, to their injury, followed ; the American Congress then believed itself 
 at liberty to declare the United States exonerated from the treaties which united them to 
 France; they broke off their relations with her; they granted letters of marque 
 against her armed vessels in the colonies ; and the encounters at sea between the 
 vessels of the two nations soon announced that the reconciliation should be hastened 
 if it was desired that it should not become very difficult. Such was the state of 
 things when three American negotiators arrived at Paris, led thither by the desire 
 and the hope of preventing a signal rupture. 
 
 "American commerce was alleged to have suffered considerable losses the nego 
 tiators demanded indemnity for them. 
 
 " The French Government had also to allege claims for her commerce, which had 
 suffered for a long time ; it recognized that it was just to liquidate, compensate and 
 close, if it were possible, the indemnities which might be respectively due ; but it 
 put forth as a condition to any stipulation on this subject, that the former treaties 
 between France and the United States should be previously recognized, considering 
 that, indemnities could only be an acknowledgment of uninterrupted friendship be 
 tween the two States ; a disavowal of all the violences which might have grown out 
 of a simple misunderstanding; a sort of protest against everything which might have 
 announced a hostile intention; a new assurance of fidelity to the old Conventions; 
 in a word, considering that indemnities could be only the execution of the old trea 
 ties, and not the preliminary of a new one, since avowing their annihilation would 
 have been avowing war, and imposing on that one of the two nations which would 
 have to pay the other a balance of indemnity, the shameful obligation of purchasing 
 peace. 
 
 " The American negotiators considered themselves bound by the act of Congress 
 which had declared the treaties null, and decided that it was impossible that they 
 could recognize them. It consequently became necessary to adjourn the respective 
 pretensions, and to regulate by new stipulations the relations of Amity and Com 
 merce which the negotiation was to re-establish. Such has been the object of the 
 Convention concluded at Paris on the 30th of September, 1800, which is now pre 
 sented to the Corps Legislatif. 
 
 * " Such was moreover the confidence of the two nations in the formation 
 of the treaty, such was their eagerness for a prompt reconciliation, that the first 
 stipulation agreed upon between the negotiators was the cessation of all hostility, 
 from the signature even of the Convention, and without waiting for its ratification on 
 the part of either, this article has been faithfully executed on the part of both. The 
 reservation of opening ulterior negotiations relative to the treaties and indemnities 
 has been consigned in the second article, of which it is the sole object. But the fear 
 of awakening: lively discussions, and of viewing any alteration in the good harmony 
 which ought to be the happy result of the other stipulations, has caused the second 
 article to be suppressed in the acts of ratification. This suppression is a prudent and 
 amicable renunciation of the respective pretensions which were expressed in the 
 article." 
 
 The above exposition was made by citizen Roderer, who, with 
 Joseph Bonaparte and C. P. Claret Fleurieu composed the Com 
 mission on the part of France, to confer with the American Com 
 missioners, Messrs. Ellsworth, Davie and Murray, in 1800. 
 
 And at the same session of the Corps Legislatif, P. A. Adet (late French Minister 
 to the United States, in 1796) made the following Report : 
 
20 
 
 Ektract. * * * "In consequence of this bill [the Act of Congress nullifying 
 the old treaties] the American Government suspended the commercial relations of the 
 United States with France, and gave to privateers permission to attack the armed 
 vessels of the Republic. The national frigates were ordered to seek them and to fight 
 them. A French frigate and sloop of war, successively and unexpectedly attacked 
 by the Americans, were obliged to yield to force, and the French flag (strange versa 
 tility of human affairs) was dragged, humiliated, before the same people who, a little 
 while ago, with eager shouts, had applauded its triumph. 
 
 " Twas getting past recovery. War would have broken out between America and 
 France if the Directory, changing its system and following the counsel of prudence,, 
 had not opposed moderation to the unmeasured conduct of the President of the United 
 States." * * * 
 
 There is another French authority in full accordance with the 
 above, and alike worthy of confidence, viz : Napolaon Bonaparte, 
 who as First Consul signed the Convention of September 80, 1800, 
 but subsequently prescribed and ratified it with the second article 
 erased; when at St. Helena, many years after the completion of 
 the Convention, in dictating to General Gourg and for history, 
 and so published, as the events of his eftnti^as First Consul de. 
 clared 
 
 "That the suppression of theWB*iarticle1p of the Convention at once put an end 
 to the privileges which France has possessedgy the treaties of 17*78, and annulled the 
 just claims which America might have made fur injuries done in time of peace." 
 
 Immediately after the final ratification of said Convention, the 
 owners of the vessels captured by the French, and whose claims 
 were, without their consent or knowledge, bartered to France for 
 the public use, demanded indemnity therefor from the Govern 
 ment of the United States under the all-controlling provisions of 
 our Constitution ; to their memorials to Congress for relief, the 
 original sufferers being long since dead, other memorials of the 
 successors, executors, administrators, and heirs, have since in 
 creased the number now on the files of Congress to- nearly four 
 thousand. 
 
 The first object of these memorials has not been regarded with 
 indifference or neglect by Congress. 
 
 The Senate, by resolution of March 5, 1834, requested the Presi 
 dent to lay before the Senate 
 
 "Copies of the several instructions to the Ministers of the United States 
 to the Government of France, and of the correspondence between the said 
 ministers and Government having reference to the spoliations committed by that 
 power on the commerce of the United States anterior to the 30th of September, 1800; 
 * * 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" Doc. 102, page 
 102. 
 
 This resolution was carried into effect by President John 
 Qumcy Adams, who, on the 20th of May, 1826, by message to the 
 
21 
 
 Senate, presented the Report of the Secretary of State, Mr. Clay, 
 the material portion of which is set forth on the 17th page of this 
 statement, and a full copy will be found at Doc. 102, page 5. 
 
 The mass of documents thus brought to light, where they had 
 slept in the secret archives of the State Department undisturbed 
 for more than a quarter of a century alike wholly unknown to 
 the claimants and to the then Congress, at once opened a Hood of 
 light, for the first time, on the subject of these claims. Since then 
 forty reports of Committees of the two Houses have been made, 
 each and all of them fully in favor of the Memorialists, accompanied 
 each with a bill for five millions of dollars, as due indemnity- 
 being a forced compromise. The last report by Senator Sumner is 
 of distinguished ability and wisdom, from the Committee of 
 Foreign Affairs, on the 4th April, 1864, with a bill of relief also, 
 to the extent of five millions of dollars; that bill to this day has 
 remained on the calendar of the Senate unacted upon, solely by 
 reason of our protracted rebellion, impeachment of President 
 Johnson, and other absorbing public matters of pressing and in 
 dispensable necessity; the bill last mentioned, however, Mr. 
 Sumner s, will be urged to completion, and no doubt successfully, 
 at the approaching session on the 4th of March next. 
 
 The Senate heretofore voted bills so reported eight times and 
 the House of Representatives twice. But neither House, when 
 the subject was brought before them, ever voted against either 
 of the bills so reported, as they were found irresistably based on 
 the facts disclosed by the correspondence with France, before 
 mentioned. 
 
 The question will naturally arise, and perhaps, as will be stated ^ 
 here, for the information of the reader, viz : Why are these seve 
 ral bills restricted to five millions of dollars, while the best attain 
 able estimate of the aggregate principal of the claims range some 
 where between eight and thirteen millions ? 
 
 The only answer is, that it is aAaged-^oraproniise prescribed 
 by Congress ex parte. 
 
 And although the claimants never asked for or contemplated 
 a compromise, yet they have not opposed this inadequate sum, 
 lest it might further delay relief, of which their aged suffering 
 associates were in great need ; hence their humane and manly 
 silence on that point. 
 
22 
 
 Nevertheless, there remains another view of the subject that 
 should not be passed over. 
 
 The claimants have asked for indemnity in general without 
 specification of amount, but for whatever amount should be found 
 justly due them ; not doubting that the great law of the Consti 
 tution that binds all parties, would be faithfully administered to 
 them, " nor shall private property be taken for the public use 
 without just compensation." 
 
 Now, no one will pretend that this forced compromise is a just 
 compensation ; therefore, neither Congress or the claimants can 
 morally or legally be bound by it. And on the other hand, Con 
 gress might find it inconvenient to assume the entire obligation 
 of the principal and seventy years interest during the present 
 burden of taxation and great public debt. 
 
 But as the claims can be paid without money in hand, by a 
 simple mode that would satisfy both parties and harmonize with the 
 constitutional provision, it is worthy, perhaps, of consideration, viz: 
 
 Let the capital of the claims, or capital and interest be ascer 
 tained, and the whole covered by scrip bearing three or four per 
 cent, per annum, and redeemable at the pleasure of the Govern 
 ment, or when the last gun has been fired. 
 
 The reader will please exemplify this suggestion according to his 
 own taste or judgment. There exists no authority to make it, but it 
 is beleived that such a proposition, if made by Congress, would 
 be acceptable to the claimants. 
 
 Between the years 1827 and 184G twenty-two reports of com 
 mittees, all in favor of the claimants, had been made in the two 
 Houses of Congress, each by a bill, and each bill for five million 
 dollars indemnity. The last of said bills was a Senate bill, and 
 confirmed by the House, and of course sent to the President, Mr. 
 Polk, who returned it with his veto on the 10th of August, 1846, 
 being the last day, and near the last hour of the session, and when 
 many of the friends of the bill had left the capital and the city. 
 On the veto being submitted to the Senate, on the question "shall 
 the bill pass? the vote was 27 yeas, 15 nays; not two thirds, so 
 the bill was lost. One additional yea would have produced the 
 required two thirds, and thus passed the bill into a law, as the 
 27 and 15 votes 42, of which 28 would be two-thirds. The large 
 majority of yeas, however, shows that no importance was given 
 to the veto. But the bill was lost. 
 
23 
 
 tllQ flrof rM"lT7af Vvill TTrtw rrf\4-f\f\A 
 
 With respect to the veto, being the first private bill ever vetoed, 
 but little need be said, since the first paragraph of the message 
 discloses that the President knew not of or disregarded the merits 
 of the claims, he says : 
 
 " In attempting to give to the bill the careful examination it requires, difficulties 
 presented themselves in the outset from the remoteness of the period to which the 
 claims belong, the complicated nature of the transactions in which they originated, 
 and the protracted negotiations to which they led between France and the^United 
 States. The short time intervening between the passage of the bill by Congress and 
 the approaching close of the session, as well as the pressure of other official duties 
 have not permitted me to extend my examination of the subject into its minute de 
 tails. 
 
 The message proceeds that his predecessors had never recognized these claims 
 that he doubted their validity ; that nothing was obtained for the claimants by nego 
 tiation, because (being payable in land scrip) it would effect the Treasury receipts 
 from that source, and only benefit speculators ; that it is only a partial payment of a 
 much larger sum, and repudiation of a part thereof, which would be unjust, not pay 
 able in the currency known to the Constitution, but in a depreciated medium, not to 
 full amount, there is no surplus in the Treasury, the public debt, the war with Mexico 
 and finally, that his objections are to the u inexpediency alone." 
 
 Hence he will allow nothing, nor one word of sympathy for 
 the losses of the suffering claimants, his fellow citizens. 
 
 Disregarding the veto as wholly untenable, at the opening of 
 the following session of Congress, on the 17th of December, 1846, 
 being only four months after the date of the veto, the Senate ap 
 pointed a committee to resume the consideration of the French 
 spoliation claims, who reported the old bill on the 10th February, 
 1847, for five million dollars, payable in five per cent. United 
 States stock. 
 
 Another like committee of the House reported a like bill on the 
 4th January, 1848. 
 
 Another like committee of the Senate reported a like bill on the 
 5th February, 1848. 
 
 Another like committee of the House reported a like bill on the 
 14th June, 1850. 
 
 Another like committee of the Senate reported a like bill on the 
 24th January, 1851. 
 
 Another like committee of the Senate reported a like bill on the 
 14th January, 1852. 
 
 Another like committee of the Senate reported a like bill on the 
 17th January, 1854. This bill was voted by the Senate by yeas 26, 
 nays 17. 
 
 Another committee of the House reported a like bill on the 4th 
 January, 1855. This bill was voted by the House by yeas 111, 
 nays 77. It was vetoed by President Pierce on 17th February, 
 
24 
 
 1855 ; and on the question " shall the bill pass ?" the vote was 
 yeas 113, nays 86; not two thirds, so the bill was lost. 
 
 This veto message, like that of President Polk, is entitled to 
 very little respect, since it also abounds with errors, trifles, and 
 even unfounded facts that are wholly inexcusable ; a due respect 
 for his office, however, is not to be overlooked. 
 
 The writer of this exposition is informed by high authority that 
 President Pierce was not the writer of said message, that it was 
 written by an officer, then of high rank arid now of the lowest 
 grade of mankind, and yet living. And by another authority, 
 no less elevated, that President Pierce himself acknowledged to 
 him that he had made a mistake in making that message but 
 these are not now material, as the message itself is under con 
 sideration. 
 
 As it would require a volume to explain the omissions and com 
 missions of errors, to say nothing of the special pleadings, pre 
 sumptions and assumptions set forth in the message, two or three 
 only of the prominent points need be remarked on. Before do 
 ing so, however, it is proper to state in advance, that the writer 
 of the message has, throughout its whole scope, committed the 
 not unusual error in those unfamiliar with the subject, but in this 
 case a blunder so vital as to disqualify the maker from all confi 
 dence, viz : of confounding torts with debts. The torts being 
 captures and condemnations, forcible seizure of property, &c., 
 and were confined to the second article of the Convention of 
 1800 ; while the debts were exclusively confined to the Conven 
 tion of 1803, that is to say, for contracts, supplies, and such cap 
 tures (some fifteen or twenty) as the French tribunals had ordered 
 to be restored, but could not be restored in kind as they had 
 been taken to the public use by the French Government, and 
 hence their value was held to be debts. 
 
 Besides, it would be absurd to say, that the fifteen hundred 
 vessels captured and condemned, and their value bartered to 
 France in 1800, could, by any possibility, be regarded as existing 
 claims in 1803. 
 
 That the message has fallen into such absurdity is easily es 
 tablishedbearing in mind that the whole Covention of 1803 is 
 confined to debts ; the fifth article thereof contains the following, 
 viz : u The said fifth article does not comprehend prizes whose con 
 demnation has been or shall be confirmed" 
 
25 
 The message also states 
 
 "If new facts, not known or not accessible during the administration of Mr. Jeffer 
 son, Mr. Madison, or Mr. Monroe, had since been brought to light, or new sources of 
 information discovered, this would greatly relieve the subject of embarrassment. 
 But nothing of this nature has occurred." 
 
 It is quite evident that the writer of the message had not seen 
 the volume of correspondence between the United States and 
 France, published by order of the Senate, of 840 pages ; the con 
 tents of which prior to 1826, had slept in the secret archives of the 
 State Department for more than a quarter of a century, being 
 the only reliable and official history of these claims, yet extant, 
 as to which there is no hazard in saying that neither Mr. Jeffer 
 son, Mr. Madiaon, or Mr. Monroe never saw, or at least, since they 
 were deposited there. And without a close examination of this 
 mass of documents, numbered 102, no man can safely or honestly 
 touch or comprehend the subject. 
 
 Without doubt, Mr. Jefferson, Mr. Madison and Mr. Monroe 
 well knew that, immediately after the fioal ratification of the Con 
 vention with France, of 30th September, 1800, that, be it remem 
 bered, was three years before the Convention of 1803, existed, 
 the House of Representatives in Congress, of its own conscious 
 ness and impulse, proposed an assumption arid payment of the 
 identical claims for French Spoliations now under consideration ; 
 and without the slightest intimation that France was in any 
 manner or degree responsible for them, as the following ex 
 tracts from the House Journal of their proceedings will clearly 
 establish. 
 
 On the 31st of January, 1803, the Journal states : 
 
 "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 ports, suffered losses 
 by the seizure of their property made by unauthorized French cruisers, or by any 
 French cruiser, without sufficient cause, in violation of the rights of American com 
 merce, during the late war between Great Britain and the French Republic, and 
 whose claims to indemnify against the said Republic were renounced by the United 
 States, by their acceptance of the ratification of the treaty lately made with France." 
 
 It is recorded in the House Journal of the 26th December, 1806, 
 that the memorials of sundry merchants, owners of vessels cap 
 tured by the French, were referred to a committee, consisting of 
 Mr. Eppes, Mr. Clinton, Mr. Tallmage, Mr. Cutts, Mr. Dickson, 
 Mr. Blount, Mr. Fenley and Mr. Tenny ; that they do examine 
 the matters thereof, and report the same, with their opinions 
 
26 
 
 thereupon, to the House. And, on the 17th February, 1807, Mr. 
 Marion reported as follows : 
 
 * * * "From a mature consideration of the subject, and from the best judgment 
 your Committee have been able to form on the case, they are of opinion that this 
 Government, by^xpfoooing .the second 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 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 from referring to 
 the Government of France for compensation." 
 
 And on the next following day the journal states: 
 
 " A motion was n ade and seconded that the House proceed to take into consider 
 ation a motion of the 31st ultimo, for indemnifying the citizens of the United States, 
 who, in carrying on a lawful commerce to foreign ports, have suffered losses by the 
 seizure of their property made by unauthorized French cruisers, or by any French 
 cruiser, without sufficient cause." 
 
 It was resolved in the affirmative yeas 65 nays 26. 
 
 The above overture was subsequently lost on account of the 
 following political considerations alone, viz : Mr. Jefferson had 
 been recently elected President on his pledge to repeal the direct 
 taxes which his predecessor had caused to be laid ; his party in 
 Congress, being predominant, held to that pledge and did repeal 
 the taxes ; whereupon the said overture and the means to carry 
 into effect fell together. But the spirit of just relief remains to 
 this day. 
 
 If that overture had produced an appropriation of one hundred 
 and fourteen thousand dollars it would, at six per cent, compound 
 interest annually, have produced, within the intervening sixty-five 
 years, a sum exceeding five millions, as now proposed. 
 
 The message continues thus 
 
 " 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 Conven 
 tion of 1800, and the further consideration of which was reserved for a more conve 
 nient time, for these claims, and for these only, provision was made in the treaties of 
 1803, all other claims being expressly excluded by them from their scope and pur 
 view." 
 
 This is so gross and signally untrue that there is no alternative 
 left from deliberate design to mislead. It does not suffice to say 
 that this declaration is wholly untrue, because it is directly the 
 reverse of the fact. So far from the exclusive debt convention of 
 1803 containing any provision for the relief of our condemned 
 fifteen hundred vessels, they were expressly and emphatically ex 
 cluded from it in terms that no man can misunderstand, viz : 
 
27 
 
 Article 5 of convention of 1803. "The said fifth article does not 
 comprehend prizes whose condemnation has been or shall be confirmed." 
 The celebrated Talleyrand would have denounced such a bold 
 blunder as worse than a crime. 
 
 A still further blunder was made in declaring that these claims 
 were paid ; which is at once an admission that they ought to 
 have been paid, and, as it is now shown, that they never were 
 paid, the logical conclusion follows that they ought now to be 
 paid. 
 
 The only portion of the message that may be assented to de 
 clares "that France has honorably discharged herself of all obli 
 gation in the premises towards the United States." This is true; 
 but that is not the question. The question at issue is, Has the 
 United States equally and honorably discharged themselves from 
 the obligations due to their own citizens ? 
 
 But returning to the proceedings of Congress 
 
 In utter disregard of both vetoes, the House appointed a committee on the claims, 
 who reported the old bill on the 3d March, 1857. 
 
 Another committee was appointed by the Senate, who reported the old bill on the 
 4th March, 1858. 
 
 This bill was voted yeas 26, nays 20. 
 
 Another committee was appointed by the House, who reported the old bill on the 
 29th March, 1860. 
 
 Another committee was appointed by the Senate, who reported the old bill June 
 11, 1860. 
 
 Another committee was appointed by the Senate, who reported January 13, 1862, 
 and the same each following session down and ending 1871, the subject being ren 
 dered inoperative during the rebellion and impeachment of President Johnson. 
 
 This last bill is now pending in the Senate. It provides for a 
 Board of Commissioners to audit the claims, whose awards shall 
 be paid by a pro rata of five million dollars as full satisfaction for 
 all the claims. Senator Sumner, as chairman of the Committee 
 on Foreign Affairs, who reported it, accompanied by a report in 
 extenso from his own gifted pen, which every person desirous of 
 a clear, full and intelligent knowledge of the subject, should not 
 fail to read, and with full confidence of its fidelity in every re 
 spect, over the whole subject. 
 
 Not only has Congress thus perseveringly favored the just 
 claims of the memorialists, but the Legislatures of the States of 
 New York, Ohio, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Maine, Connecticut, 
 Delaware, Rhode Island, Maryland, Alabama, Pennsylvania, 
 New Hampshire, Virginia (by House of Delegates) and Arkansas 
 no less earnestly and perseveringly maintained these just claims, 
 
28 
 
 by instructing their Senators and requesting their Representatives 
 in Congress to aid and support the bills hereinbefore mentioned; 
 and several of said States have repeated said instructions again 
 and again. 
 
 A single remark may be indulged here, on the point stated in 
 the last message, viz : that these claims have been paid. 
 
 That throughout the thorough discussions had on them by Con 
 gress within the past half century, by forty different committees 
 of the two Houses, and by a like number of speeches pro and con 
 by the brightest intellects, and by the Legislatures of fourteen 
 States, yet not one of this mass of respectable and reliable per 
 sons, or any other reliable person in private life, has had the bold 
 ness, the audacity to say that these claims have been paid. 
 
 It is no less due to the memory of President Pierce to add the 
 full belief that that declaration, and other leading points in his 
 message, was interpolated there by an unworthy hand, and thus 
 imposed on the President. 
 
 The veto power has been twice exercised on bills passed by 
 both Houses of Congress in this case; that of President Polk 
 was, as is believed, the first veto ever made by any President on 
 a private bill; and he frankly admits therein that it is based on 
 "inexpediency alone." And, with equal frankness, President 
 Pierce declares that the bill before him a involved no violation of 
 the Constitution." 
 
 It may, therefore, with propriety, be asked why the terrific 
 veto power should have been applied against said bills? 
 
 There has been much less discussion had but no reliable con 
 clusion on the veto power than its great importance justly de 
 mands; indeed, it is still an open question, and certainly a very 
 dangerous one, as it is a death blow to any case. It carries 
 with it all the influence of the President into the two Houses of 
 Congress, and, as the majority of the Congress is usually if not 
 always in harmony with the President, so his veto meets a ready 
 confirmation by his political friends it overrules the great funda 
 mental principle, that the majority shall decide ordinary questions 
 of fact, and substitutes a two-thirds as overruling it. And it is 
 thus exercised without, or with imperfect knowledge of the subject 
 matter of a bill, as is fully admitted in both these instances that 
 it is utterly impossible for the President to fairly judge of the real 
 merit of any such bill by an imperfect examination of its details. 
 
29 
 
 It is therefore ex parte and inopportune, though it kills instantly. 
 Who ever heard of such a veto being overruled by Congress? 
 No despot on earth ever exercised a higher dictatorial arbitrary 
 power. 
 
 Nevertheless, the power must of necessity exist, and properly 
 in the hands of the President for the sacred indispensable pur. 
 pose, and for no other, as a shield to defend the Constitution. Its 
 abuse, therefore, is alone complained of. Perhaps the best au 
 thority extant on the veto power is that of Mr. Jefferson, whose 
 whole early efforts and profound judgment in framing our Govern 
 ment, commands our highest respect : he says : 
 
 " The negative of the President is the shield provided by the Constitution to pro 
 tect against the invasion of the Legislature, 1st, the rights of the Executive ; 2d, of 
 the Judiciary; 3d, of the States and State Legislatures. * * * It must be added, 
 however, that unless the Presidents mend, on a view of every thing which is urged 
 for and against a bill is tolerably clear that it is unauthorized by the Constitution, 
 [by section 8 of the 1st article of the Constitution, Congress shall have power "to pay 
 the, debts" of the nation, ] if the pro and con hang so even as to balance his judg 
 ment, a just respect for the wisdom of the Legislature would naturally decide the 
 balance in favor of their opinion. 
 
 " It is chiefly in cases where they are clearly misled by error, ambition, or interest, 
 that the Constitution has placed a check in the negative of the President." Jeffer 
 son s Works, Vol. 4, p. 527. 
 
 The two vetoes made in this case, were not only groundless, 
 but, with all their gross imperfection, were ungraciously thrown 
 back into the faces of the more intelligent Legislatures that had 
 voted the bills after forty consecutive years of examination. And 
 the strangest thing of all is, that the Legislatures did not instantly 
 resent the insult, and thereby defend the Constitution. 
 
 After all that has been said both herein and elsewhere, both 
 pro and con, the real merits of the case, when stripped bare of 
 all extraneous appendages, lays in a nut-shell, viz: 
 
 The claimants allege, to use the words of both Governments, 
 that they were robbed of their property by the French ; and that, 
 in seeking for their stolen property, they have traced it into the 
 secret archives of our State Department ; and they now ask of 
 Congress to restore it to them. Thus, the whole question at issue 
 is, Shall that be done? 
 
 JAMES H. CAUSTEN, 
 
 in behalf of the Claimants. 
 
 WASHINGTON, D. C., February 17, 1871. 
 
14 DAY USE 
 
 RETURN TO DESK FROM WHICH BORROWED 
 
 LOAN DEPT. 
 
 This book is due on the last date stamped below, or 
 
 on the date to which renewed. 
 Renewed books are subject to immediate recall. 
 
 * 30ott v 56FH 
 
 13Mar 65LW* 
 
 REC D LD 
 
 rwcC D ( p 
 
 OCT 3 1 1953 
 
 JUN 1 n tPRtj 
 
 H[/ p "HftM j 
 
 vWcl 
 
 oc ?or?4 
 
 
 REC D LD 
 
 
 DEC 1 1 1956 
 
 
 -,Ml-.,,1Gt\(*f>W 
 
 
 j3Nlay bui,nB 
 
 
 K- " - " 
 
 
 LIBRARY UBE 
 
 
 OCT 1^1960 
 
 
 w * ** 
 
 
 APT -j ijfin 
 
 
 )L, 1 1. vynM 
 
 r -n Toi inn c cc General Library 
 ^.liiUSS? 1 . 59 Urfm^of&lilbnd. 
 
Gaylamount 
 Pamphlet 
 
 Binder 
 Ciaylord Bros., Inc. 
 
 Stockton, Calif. 
 T. M. Reg. U.S. Pat. Off. 
 
 50893 
 
 M9S883 
 
 35 
 
 THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY