on the footing of the most favored nation. The ground of this complaint was the fact that British and certain other foreign vessels, under reciprocal agreements between their governments and the Government of the United States, enjoyed in the ports of the United States, including of course those in Louisiana, certain exemptions from duty to which vessels of France and of other nations with which there was no such arrangement were not admitted. Under the eighth article France demanded for her vessels in the ports of Louisiana the rate of duty conceded to the most favored nation. The United States replied that neither British nor other foreign vessels enjoyed in Louisiana ports any gratuitous advantage; that the article in question did not contemplate the concession to France as a mere gift of what was accorded to other nations for a full equivalent; that France might obtain, not only in the ports of Louisiana, but in all other ports of the United States, the same advantage as was enjoyed by other vessels on the same condition, namely, reciprocity; and that a more extensive construction of the article would violate that clause of the Constitution which requires all duties, imposts, and excises to be uniform throughout the United States.1 In the early stages of the American Revolution BeauClaim of Beaumarchais. marchais, who possessed capacity for intrigue and adventure as well as for the drama, undertook to supply the United States with arms and munitions of war, under the fictitious commercial title of Roderique Hortalez & Co. A question subsequently arose as to how far he was entitled to payment for these supplies, it being alleged that he obtained some of them with money which was advanced to him by the French Government as a gift to the United States; and, while a partial settlement was made with him in 1779, a large part of his accounts remained at the close of the Revolution unadjusted. They afterward formed the subject of many executive and legislative reports, besides reappearing at intervals in the records of diplomacy. Instructions of In 1829 the negotiations in regard to the spoliation claims passed into the hands of William C. Rives, then appointed minister to France, a man of strong natural powers and cultivated intelligence, who, by reason of the clearness of his comprehension, the breadth of his views, and the elevation of his motives, as uniformly exhibited during a long career in the public service, is entitled to a high rank among American statesmen. His instructions on the subject of claims were signed by Mr. Van Buren, as Secretary of State, and bore date the 20th of July 1829. They divided the claims into five classes: 1. Claims prior to September 30, 1800, recognized by the fourth and fifth articles of the convention of that date, but either pretermitted by the convention of April 30, 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 convention of 1800 and the tenth article of that of 1803. These claims were estimated at $1,488,833.99. 2. Claims accruing between September 30, 1800, and April 30, 1803, for debts contracted 1Am. State Papers, For. Rel. V. 152, 640; H. Ex. Doc. 147, 22 Cong. 2 sess. Wharton's Dip. Cor. Am. Rev. 1. 364-386; Loménie's Beaumarchais and His Times, III. 106, 122, 200, 211, 263, within that period, and referred to in the twelfth article of the convention of 1803. These claims were placed at $134,786.06. 3. Claims accruing between September 30, 1800, and April 30, 1803, from causes other than debts and captures, amounting to $75,704.53. 4. Claims between April 30, 1803, and the year 1805, amounting to $1,065,081.98. 5. (A) Claims subsequent to 1805 growing out of decrees of the French Government and on which no final condemnation was passed, amounting to $6,256,647.69. (B) Claims of the same nature, but finally condemned by the Council of Prizes, the Council of State, or by imperial decisions or orders, amounting to $3,026,231.84. The whole, exclusive of interest, amounted to $12,047,286.09. Mr. Van Buren said that the chief objections to the claims were (1) that they were stale and ought to have been pressed at an earlier period; (2) that similar claims against England and Naples had not been enforced; (3) that the present Government of France was not responsible for the acts of what was called the usurping government; (4) that the claims were very large, that the allowance of them would involve the acknowledgment of a responsibility on the part of France which she would be unable to discharge, and that the United States should accept a compromise, as the European powers had done; (5) that in certain classes of cases since 1805 there was no ground of claim. tions. Mr. Rives, on his arrival in Paris, took up the subMr. Rives's Negotia- ject with much energy. He held numerous conferences with the Prince de Polignac, then president of the council of ministers, and wrote a number of notes. Early in the negotiations the Prince admitted liability in cases where the property had not been finally condemned, and where vessels and cargoes were destroyed at sea. He subsequently went somewhat further, and intimated that he would propose a mixed commission to examine and liquidate all the claims. Mr. Rives then drew up a project of a convention, by the first article of which it was provided that France should make compensation to citizens of the United States "for all losses and damage sustained by reason of illegal or irregular captures, seizures, and sequestrations of their vessels and cargoes under the authority of France, in all cases where the said vessels and cargoes have not been definitively condemned by the Council of Prizes, as also for all losses and damage sustained by the unlawful destruction of their vessels and cargoes at sea, and for all supplies derived from citizens of the United States, or debts otherwise due by virtue of contract." By the second article it was provided that France should also make compensation for losses and damages sustained by condemnations: (1) Where such condemnations were in violation of the convention of September 30, 1800; (2) where the condemnations were not pronounced by a regular prize tribunal; (3) where the proceedings were irregular; (4) where the sentences of condemnation gave a retrospective effect to the decrees under which they were made; (5) where condemnations were made under the Berlin or Milan decrees, after the French Government had pronounced them repealed; (6) where, for other causes, the commission should determine that France was "justly" liable. The draft provided for the appointment of commissioners and arbitrators. Prince de Polignac appointed a committee of three to examine the claims and report to him; but he also strongly pressed the question as to the Louisiana treaty. In order to get rid of this difficulty Mr. Rives suggested that, if the claims were promptly settled and the Louisiana question abandoned, the United States might in a spirit of friendly liberality grant some commercial advantage, such as a reduction of the duties on French wines. This suggestion Mr. Rives made on May 20, 1830, without instructions. Conclusion of a Convention. On the 30th of July 1830 Mr. Rives reported that the prospect of settling the claims had for the present ceased, in consequence of the revolution. At that moment a tricolored flag waved from the palace, and Paris was again tranquil under a provisional government, after passing through three days of commotion and bloodshed. But in the midst of the political changes that were taking place it was impossible again to secure attention to the subject of claims before the middle of September. A new commission, however, was then appointed to examine the subject, the report of the former commission having been adverse to the claims. The new commission did not report till near the end of March 1831. A majority defended the system of imperial decrees, while a minority pronounced it illegal; heuce the commission reported against redress where there was a regular application of the system, but recommended it where vessels were burnt at sea, where they were irregularly condemned, or where they were condemned after the decrees were said to have been repealed. The majority recommended the payment of between 10,000,000 and 15,000,000 francs, the minority of about 30,000,000. In April 1831 the government made an offer of 15,000,000 francs. Mr. Rives immediately rejected it. Early in May the offer was raised to 20,000,000 francs, and when this was refused it was raised to 24,000,000, payable by installments in six years. This offer was made as an ultimatum. Mr. Rives mentioned 40,000,000 francs as a sum on which he would compromise, and when this was refused he revived the proposition for a mixed commission. Subsequently he proposed to meet the government halfway between the sums respectively proposed by the minister for foreign affairs and by himself. The minister for foreign affairs, apprehending opposition from the chambers, added 1,000,000 francs to the previous 24,000,000, as an ultimatum. On receiving this offer Mr. Rives brought up the question of interest, and on June 13, 1831, he submitted a draft of a convention in which it was proposed that France should pay 25,000,000 francs in six installments, with interest on each installment from the date of the convention at the rate of 4 per cent, the money to be distributed by the United States. On June 15, Count Sebastiani, the minister for foreign affairs, brought forward the various claims against the United States, including that of the heirs of Beaumarchais, amounting in all to 4,689,241.41 francs, and after much discussion he agreed to accept the sum of 1,500,000 francs in satisfaction of all the French claims. But the question as to the eighth article of the Louisiana treaty yet remained. The French Government insisted on its settlement at the same time as the claims. It was finally arranged in accordance with Mr. Rives's suggestion of May 1830, the French construction of the article being abandoned in consideration of a reduction of the duties on French wines for a period of ten years. The convention, the conclusion of which gave great satistion to the United States, was signed July 4, 1831. The ratifications were exchanged at Washington February 2, 1832.1 mission. By an act of July 13, 1832, provision was made for Provision for a Com- carrying the convention into effect. This act provided for the appointment of "three commissioners, who shall form a board, whose duty it shall be to receive and examine all claims which may be presented to them under the convention, which are provided for by the said convention, according to the provisions of the same, and the principles of justice, equity, and the law of nations." Provision was made for a secretary, versed in the English, French, and Spanish languages, and also for a clerk. The commissioners were required to meet in Washington on the first Monday in August 1832, and to terminate their duties within two years thereafter. They were empowered to make rules and regulations; and it was provided that all papers in the Department of State relating to the claims should be delivered to them. At the close of their labors they were directed to certify a list of their awards to the Secretary of the Treasury, on whom was imposed the duty of distributing among the persons in whose favor the awards were made, in ratable proportions, the moneys received from France. The salary of each commissioner was fixed at $3,000 a year; of the secretary at $2,000, and the clerk at $1,500. Appointment of Commissioners. As commissioners the President appointed G. W. Campbell, of Tennessee; John K. Kane, of Pennsylvania, and R. M. Saunders, of North Carolina. As secretary he appointed John E. Frost. Mr. Campbell, the oldest of the commissioners, had had a long career in the public service. A native of Tennessee, where he was born in 1768, and a graduate of Princeton, he had been a Representative in Congress, a Senator of the United States, Secretary of the Treasury, and minister to Russia. Mr. Kane was a native of the State of New York and a graduate of Yale, but after studying law he entered upon the practice of his profession in Philadelphia, of which city he was solicitor from 1828 to 1830. In Federal politics he figured as a prominent supporter of President Jackson. He formed an active and useful member of the board, and, it is understood, wrote its final report. His "Notes" on its decisions will be referred to hereafter. In 1845 he became attorney-general of Pennsylvania, and in the following year was appointed district judge for the United States at Philadelphia. Mr. Saunders was a native of North Carolina and a graduate of the university of that State. He held numerous public positions, serving at different times as attorney-general of North Carolina, a member of the State legislature, a Representative in Congress, and a judge of the superior courts of the State. He introduced in the Baltimore convention in 1844 the two-thirds rule which was adopted by that body, and which has ever since been adhered to in Democratic national conventions. In 1845 he was appointed minister to Spain. 14 Stats. at L. 574. Mr. Saunders was not one of the original members of the board, but was appointed to succeed Thomas H. Williams, who held the position only for a short time. The board having met at the time required by the Rules of Procedure. act of Congress, it adjourned on the 18th of September 1832, to meet again on the third Monday in the following December, for the purpose of examining the memorials which might in the mean time have been filed with the secretary, and of deciding whether they conformed to the rules adopted by the commissioners for the government of their procedure. The rules were as follows: "OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONERS UNDER THE ACT TO CARRY INTO EFFECT THE CONVENTION WITH FRANCE, "Washington City, 18th September 1832. "Ordered, That all persons having claims under the convention between the United States and His Majesty the King of the French, concluded on the 4th of July 1831, do file memorials of the same with the Secretary of the Board. Every memorial so filed must be addressed to the Commissioners; it must set forth minutely and particularly the facts and circumstances whence the right to prefer such claim is derived to the claimant; and it must be verified by his affidavit. "And in order that the claimants may be apprised of what the Board now considers necessary to be averred in every such memorial, before the same will be received and acted on, it is further "Ordered, That in every such memorial it shall be set forth: "1. For and in behalf of whom the claim is preferred. "2. Whether the claimant is a citizen of the United States of America, and, if so, whether he is native or naturalized, and where is now his domicil; if he claims in his own right, then whether he was a citizen when the claim had its origin, and where was then his domicil; or if he claims in the right of another, then whether such other was a citizen when the claim had its origin, and where was then, and where is now, his domicil. "3. Whether the entire amount of the claim does now, and did at the time when the claim had its origin, belong solely and absolutely to the claimant; and if any other person is or has been interested therein, or in any part thereof, then, who is such other person, and what is or was the nature and extent of his interest; and how, when, by what means, and for what consideration, the transfer of rights or interest, if any such were, took place between the parties. "4. Whether the claimant, or any other who may at any time have been entitled to the amount claimed, or any part thereof, hath ever received any, and, if any, what sum of money or other equivalent as indemnification for the whole or any part of the loss or injury upon which the claim is founded; and if so, when and from whom the same was received. "And that time may be allowed to the claimants to prepare and file the memorials above mentioned, it is further “Ordered, That, when this Board shall close the present session, it will adjourn to meet again on the 3rd Monday of December next, at which time it will proceed to decide whether the memorials which may have been filed with the Secretary are in conformity to the foregoing orders, and proper to be received for examination, and to transact any other business that may come before it; and that the Secretary cause public notice hereof to be given in the journals authorized to publish the laws of the United States. "By order of the Board: "J. E. FROST, Secretary." Papers Relating to "G. W. CAMPBELL. By a joint resolution of February 19, 1833, Congress authorized the Secretary of State to deliver to the commissioners "the evidences of any claims submitted to and rejected by the commissioners for the settlement of claims under the treaty with Spain which was made on the 22d day of February 1819, |