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!