GIFT OF 
 
 Bancroft 
 LIBRARY 
 
REVIEW 
 
 OP 
 
 THE VETO MESSAGE OF PRESIDENT PIERCE 
 
 OF FEBRUARY 17, 1855, 
 
 ON THE BILL RELATING TO FRENCH SPOLIATIONS. 
 
 
 
flancron 
 LIBRARY 
 
REVIEW 
 
 Of the Veto Message of President Pierce of February ,17 , lBS>5 t ,934b4$i& t l!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 
 relating 1 ;, to them; as >- sha ; H -reader the subject-matter and remarks intelligible. 
 
 .From 1793 to"the i -datfe-df the convention of 1800, France had captured Ameri- 
 ;, ii vessels anu e.ajgoes to avery 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 d 1 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 France 1 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 gd 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, 
 rr 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 cae 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.] 
 
 u An 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 
 
 Nanv 
 
 Columbia 
 
 Crousillat, Louis 4 
 Carhart William 3 
 
 Supplies, 120. 
 
 00 
 
 91 
 
 
 
 
 53 
 65 
 
 136 
 139 
 
 Ann 
 
 Coleman, Prince 
 
 Embargo. 
 
 73 
 
 
 P () |l v 
 
 
 
 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 
 
 Embaro. 
 
 105 
 
 145 
 
 
 Dorset F .... 
 
 Embargo. 
 
 118 
 
 149 
 
 
 
 
 133 
 
 150 
 
 Ruby. . ... 
 
 
 Embargo. 
 
 142 
 
 150 
 
 Pfpriry 
 
 
 Enibar r o. 
 
 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 & \Vachmuth 
 
 
 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 
 
 
 feton & 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 . . . 
 
 
 3 r >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 
 
 P lvr " 
 
 
 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 Ile 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 
 w 7 hen 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 
 
 S e 
 
 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 pt 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 
 
 W Though n this 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 w r ord 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 
 
 ^;t J in m *l^rtt?^^ P otsU^ 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, 
 r g espe C rvdy, 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 
 
 ia P rds%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 
 
 Ve Th 1 ese f 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