K BRIEF REASONS WHY THE ' SUFFERERS BY FRE.-TCH SPOILATIONS PRIOR TO 1800 SHOULD BE INDEMNIFIED BY THEIR OWN GOVERNMENT. BRIEF REASONS Why the Sufferers by French Spoliations prior to 1800 should be indemnified by their own Government. HISTORICAL FACTS. In 1793, France and Great Britain being at war, committed exten- sive depredations on American commerce, and the merchants, alarmed, began to withdraw from the ocean, to the great detriment of the Treasury, when the Government, through the Secretary of State, (THOMAS JEFFERSON,) issued the following circular, dated August 27, 1793: " I have it in charge from the President to assure the merchants of the United States concerned in foreign commerce or navigation, that attention will be paid to any injuries they may suffer on the high seas or in foreign countries, contrary to the law of nations or to existing treaties ; and that, on their forwarding hither well authenticated evi- dences of the same, proper proceedings will be adopted for their relief." (Doc. 102, p. 216.) Relying on these assurances, commercial enterprise received a fresh impulse, and a series of captures by both belligerents followed. England provided for the payment of those made by her, but France, acknowledging her liability, advanced a counter claim for the non- fulfilment of the stipulations of the treaties of 1778 and 1788, gua- ranteeing former her possessions in the West Indies, acquired or to be acquired, as an equivalent for the supplies of men and money fur- nished by her in our struggle for independence, and which contributed so largely to that happy event. Two successive missions were sent to France, viz., Piuckncy, Mar- shall and Gerry, in 1797, and Ellsworth, Davieand Murray, in 1799, who repeatedly made large pecuniary offers to France, greatly exceed- ing the proposed indemnity. These sums were promptly refused by the French negotiators, who would not abrogate the privileges of our ports for their privateers and prizes/w- any m that miijht be, nnmeil thry mu<le it the point of honor. We proposed to reduce their privileges to those of the most favored nation for 5,000,000 of francs, and to reduce the gua- rantee to an annual subsidy of 8400,000; or to extinguish the gua- rantee for 10,000,000 of francs, the whole to be deducted from the awards to be made in favor of the claims now under consideration, .'O far as the same would reach ; and after much negotiation the claim of private citizens, comprising more than one thousand vessels and car- gocH, valued at upwards of fifteen millions of dollars, were bartered, away fur a release of national obligations of incalculable value. TESTIMONY. Instructions from (lie PRESIDENT of the United Stales to the Envoys, in 1799. At the opening of the negotiation you will inform the French Min- isters that the United States expect from France, as an indispenKable condition of the treaty, a stipulation to make the ekizens of the United States just compensation for all losses and damages which they shall have sustained by reason of irregular or illegal captures or condemna- tions of their vessels, and other property, under color of authority or commissions from the French republic or its agents. WILLIAM VAN MXJKRAY, (one of the Ministers,) says, in a letter to- James Madison, Secretary of State, July 1, 1801 : "I wish I had been authorized to subscribe to a joint abandonment of treaties and indemnities ; as claims, they will always be set off against each other} and I consider the cessation of their claims to treaties as valuable." (Doc. 102, p. 675.") ROBERT R. LIVINGSTON, Minister to France, April 27, 1803, says : " The payment for illegal captures, with damages and indemnities, was demanded on one side, and the renewal of the treaty of 1788 on the other ; they icere considered as of equal value, and they only formed the subject of the 2d article." (Doc. 102, p. 717.) JAMES MADISON, (then Secretary of State,) February 6, 1804 r says : " The claims from which France was released were admitted by France, and the release icas for a valuable consideration in a cor- respondent release of the United States from certain claims on them." (Doc. 102, p. 795.) JOHN MARSHALL, (one of the Ministers,) says : " I would posi- tively oppose any admission of the claims of any French citizen if not accompanied with the admission of the claims of American citizens for property captured and condemned for want of a tole d'equipaye. 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. (Journal, p. 471, No. 316.) " He (Chief Justice MARSHALL) stated that, having been connected with the events of that period, and conversant with the circumstances under which the claims arose, he was. from his own knowledge, satis- fied that there was the strongest obliyation on the Government to com- pensate the sufferers by the French spoliations," (Letter from Iloii. W. C. Preston, U. S. Senate, S. C.) TIMOTHY PICKERING, (Secretary of State in 1800,) says : " If the relinquishmeut (of these claims) had not been made, the present French Government (1824) would be responsible; consequently the velinquishment by our own Government having been made, in considera- tion that the French Government relinquished its demand for a renewal >f the old treaties, tlion it seems clear that, a sour Government applied the mrwhunts' properly to buy off those old treaties, the sums so applied should be reimbursed." (Letter 19th November, 1824.) Monsieur ROEDERER (one of the French Ministers who negotiated the treaty of 1800) said, in the Legislative Assembly, 26th November, 1801 : " This suppression (of the 2d article) is a prudent and ami- cnble remtnciatfon of the respective pretensions which were expressed in that article." Napoleon Boaaparte (First Consul in 1800) says: "The suppres- sion of this article at oace put a end to the privileges which France liad by the treaties of 1778, and annulled the just claims which Ame- rica might have made for injuries done in time of peace.' 1 (Gourgaud's Memoirs, vol. ii. p, 95.) Message of President JEFFERSON to Congress, December, 1801 : [Sxfrad^] "It is a circumstance of sincere gratification to me, that on meeting the great council of the nation, I am able to announce t<> them, ou grounds of reasonable certainty, that the wars and troubles, which have for so many years afflicted our sister nations, have at Irngth couie to an eod; and that the communications, of peace and commerce are once more opening among them. Whilst we devoutly return thanks to the beneficent Being who has been pleased to breathe anto them the spirit of conciliation and forgiveness, we are bound, with peculiar gratitude, to be thankful to Him that our own peace has been, fre nerved through so perilous a season, and ourselves permitted qnidly to cultivate the earth, and to practise and improve those arts which tend to increase our comforts. The assurances, indeed, of friendly disposition received from all the Powers with whoin we have principal relations, had inspired a confidence that our peace with them would not have been disturbed. But a cessation of the irregularities which had afflicted the commerce of neutral nations, and of the irri- tations and injuries produced by them, cannot but add to this confi- dence; and strengthens, at the same time, the hope that wrongs committed on unoffending friends will now be reviewed with candor, and will be considered as founding just claim* of retribution for the past,. and new assurances for the future." Wait's American State 1'apers, vol. iv. pages 325 '26. RESOLUTIONS OF LEGISLATURES. The following States have at various times recommended to Congress to make appropriations for the indemnity of sufferers by these spolia- tions : MAINE, MASSACHUSETTS, CONNECTICUT, OHIO, DELAWARE, ALABAMA, NEW HAMPSHIRE, RHODE ISLAND, NEW YORK, PENN- SYLVANIA, MARYLAND, LOUISIANA, ARKANSAS. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES. In April, 1803, a report of the facts, favorable to the claimants was made by a committee, consisting of GILES, of Virginia ; MITCHELL, of New York; Lo \YNDES, of South Curoliqa ; MILLEDOE, of Georgia, TALLMADGE, of Connecticut ; WILLIAMS, of North Carolina ; DAVIS, of Kentucky ; and GREGG, of Pennsylvania, on the following resolu- tion : " Resolwfl, That it is proper to make provision by law towards indemnifying the merchants 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." February 18, 1807. Another committee, consisting of MARION, of South Carolina ; EPPES, of Virginia ; GEORGE CLINTON, of New York ; TALLMADGE, of Connecticut ; CUTTS, of Massachusetts ; DICKSON, of Tennessee; BLOUNT, of North Carolina; FINDLAY, of Pennsylvania ; and TENNEY, of New Hampshire, made a report containing the follow- ing emphatic declaration : that this Government, by expunging the second article of our Convention of France, of the 30th September, 1800, became bound to indemnify the mimorialists for those just claims which they otherwise would have riyhtfully h<i<1 on the Government of France." Subsequent reports to the same effect (twenty-six in number) were made by committees of both Houses, at the head of which stood EDWARD LIVINGSTON, HOLMES, WEBSTER, EVERETT, WILKINS, CHAMBERS, HOWARD, ARCHER, MOREHEAD, GUSHING, C. J. INGER- SOLL, CHOATE, CLAYTON, TRUMAN SMITH and BUEL, while not a m'nyle report has been made by the majority of any committee in either House since the year 1826, when, by a resolution of Congress, they were first put in possession of all the documents connected with these transactions. CONCLUSION. The irresistible conclusion from the preceding facts, supported by the uncontradicted testimony of many of the most eminent statesmen known in our country, and who were personally cognizant of those facts, is, that an immense amount of the property of private citizens has been used to purchase for the Government a release from treaty obligations, which, had they been insisted on by France, and performed by us, would have led to incalculable national injury. The Constitution of the United States (article 5 of amendments) provides that " private property shall not be taken for the public use without just compensation. In the words of EDWARD LIVINGSTON, then in the United States Senate, afterwards Secretary of State under General Jackson, himself an active participant in the politics of that day : " If so, can there be a doubt, independent of the constitutional provisions, that the sufferers are entitled to indemnity ? Under that provision, is not this right converted into one that we are under the most solemn obligation tc satisfy ?" More contemporaneous testimony in favor of " French Spoliations." Debates in Congress for the year 1802. " On the 5th of February, [1802,] a memorial was presented from sundry merchants of Baltimore, 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 Government, prior to the promulgation of the late convention between the United States and France, [of Sept. 30, 1800,] in the provision of which compact the memorialists discover an unqualified 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 l.lth of March, Mr. Griswold laid the following motion on the table : " Ifcf lived, That it is proper to make provision, by law, towards indemnifying the merchants 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 witli 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 consideration, was lost, without debate Yeas, 3o, 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 post- ponement 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. Lowndes, 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 Maryland; Mr. Mitchell, of New York ; Mr. Gregg, of Pennsylva- nia; Mr. Eustis, of Massachusetts ; and Mr. Bacon, of Massachusetts, in a debate which continued until the usual hour of adjournment. " 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 committee had not yet met; that it was full time to attend to a subject so interesting as that involved in them ; that, as the principle of indemnity was of u gen- ernl 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 im- portant, before a decision was had on the repeal of the internal taxes, that the extent of the in Inanities allowed by the Government should be ascertained. It was contended that the claims of the merchants 6 could not be rejected, as they were too just to be disregarded. The sole object of this resolution wa, to bring the principle of indemnity before the House, unfettered, that its decision might not be embar- rassed 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 resolu- tion so qualified as to extend only to cases where Icsses 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 pos- sible, 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 consideration which ought to be placed alto- gether 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 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. 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 at 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 com- mittee, 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 petitions 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 impor- tance. But the present resolution oifered 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 sub- ject and to report their opinion upon them; on receiving which opin- ion, 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. " 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. " 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 of our merchants, the exa- mination of which would be a work of years, and which would, with- out doubt, be indemnified, even if it should be necessary, for that purpose, to restore the repealed taxes. " The question was then taken on Mr. Griswold's motion to post- pone the order of the day, and lost Yeas 33, Nays 54." James Madison, then Secretary of State, writing to Mr. Charles Pinckney, our Minister to Spain, on the 6th of February, 1804, says : " The plea on which it seems the Spanish Government now principally relies, is the erasure of the second Article of our late Convention with France, by which France was released from the indemnities due for Spoliations committed under their immediate responsibility to the United States." "We claim against her, not against France. In releasing France, therefore, we have not released her. The claims, again, from which France was released, WERE ADMITTED BY FRANCE, and the release was for A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, IN A CORRESPONDENT RELEASE OP THE UNITED STATES FROM CERTAIN CLAIMS ON THEM." [Doc. 102, P. 795. " In Seybert's Statistical Annals, page 750, is a statement of the public debt of the United States, from 1791 to 1817, inclusive. He states the debt unprovided for thus, viz. : For 1802, . . $78,754,568 70 1-u::, 1804, 1805, 1806, 1807, 1808, ISII'.I, 74,731,922 85 85,353,643 22 80,534,608 65 74,542,957 68 67,731,645 62 64,742,326 26 56,732,379 81 For 1810, 1811, 1812, 1813, 1S1-4, 1*15, 1816, 1817, $53,156,532 64 47,855,070 50 45,035,123 70 55,907,452 23 80,986,291 65 99,824,410 70 123,016,375 09 118,882,865 45 These claimants have been constantly before Congress since the claims were assumed by the treaty of 1800. Their memorials have produced the following Reports : 1802, Apr. 22, House, Mr. Giles, Marion, Russell, Forsyth, Holmes, Everett, Chambers, Chambers, Everett, 1807, Feb. 18, do. 1822, Jan. 31, do. 1824, Mar. 25, do. 1827, Feb. 8, Senate, 1828, May 21, House, 1828, May 24, Senate, 1829, Feb. 11, do. 1829, Feb. 16, House, 1830, Feb. 22, Senate, 1830, Dec. 21, do. 1831, Jan. 14, do. 1832, Dec, 20, do. 1834, Dec. 10, do. 1835, Feb. 21, House, 1838, Jan. 20, do. 1838, Mar. 31, do. 1840, Apr. 4, do. 1841, Dec. 29, do. Cushing, do. 1842, Jan. 28, Senate, Choate, do. 1843, Jan. 13, do. Choate, do. 1844, Apr. 17, House, Ingersoll, do. 1844, May 29, Senate, Choate, do. 1844, Dec. 23, do. Choate, do. 1846, Feb. 2, do. Clayton, do. 1846, Aug. 4, House, Smith, do. 184950, favorable report, Bill passed Senate. 1850-51, do. do. do. favorable. do. do. do. do. do. do. do. Bill. do. Livingston, do. Bill. Livingston, do. Bill, passed. do. Bill, passed. do. Bill. do. Bill, passed. do. do. Bill. Cushing, (by consent) fav. Cushing, favorable. Bill. Livingston, Wilkins, Webster, Everett, Howard, Bill, do. do. do. do. do. passed, do. do. do. do. rx THE LIBRARY UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA Santa Barbara THIS BOOK IS DUE ON THE LAST DATE STAMPED BELOW. Series 9482 A f\f"\ '''''''lll'lllllllll III, '~ ?7 &M - ? . i> ... -,, n "ifiS!