On the 23d of March Mr. Cheves presented an answer to the argument of the British commissioner, both on the question of property in the slaves at the time of their taking away and on the question of interest and damages.

Dauphin Island.

Mr. Cheves offered to submit the question of interest to one of the arbitrators, but Mr. Jackson declined to do so, on the ground that interest was clearly excluded by the convention. Yet another unyielding difference arose in relation to some of the Louisiana claims for slaves carried away from Dauphin Island, in Mobile Bay. This island was occupied by British forces during the war, and was surrendered by them at its close; but Mr. Jackson maintained that it was not, at the time of the exchange of the ratifications of the Treaty of Ghent, lawfully a part of the United States; that it was not an appendage of Louisiana, but belonged to West Florida, which was not ceded to the United States till 1819. This objection embraced perhaps the greater part of the slaves alleged to have been carried away from Louisiana. Mr. Cheves refused to discuss the right of the United States to the island, but offered to refer the claims in respect of which the question arose to one of the arbitrators. This Mr. Jackson declined to do.

Clay's Offer of Settlement.

On April 27, 1825, the commissioners adjourned to the 8th of the ensuing December, partly for the purpose of affording an opportunity for the production of evidence. On the 10th of May, a month after their adjournment, Mr. Clay, who had then become Secretary of State, instructed Rufus King, the newly appointed minister to England, to sound the British Government as to a compromise of the claims by the payment of a gross sum of money, and if this suggestion should not be favorably received to "urge the British Government to infuse a better spirit into their commissioner, and, especially, that they instruct him to execute the fifth article of the convention according to its true intent and meaning, by referring to the arbitrator all the questions on which he and Mr. Cheves have disagreed," and "all other questions on which, from time to time, the commissioners, during the future progress of the board, may, unfortunately, happen to disagree." As to the basis of a compromise for a lump sum, Mr. Clay said that the total number of slaves on the definitive list was 3,601. The entire value of all the property for which indemnity was claimed, including interest, might be

stated at $2,693,120. If that sum could be obtained every claimant might be fully compensated. But, as so large a sum could hardly be expected, Mr. Clay set forth his views as to the deductions which would probably be made if the commission should proceed to fulfill its duties. And first, as to slaves, he said that upwards of 2,400 were carried away from Maryland and Virginia, and that of this number probably not more than 500 would be brought by the proof within the terms of the Treaty of Ghent. Of the 1,201 left, after deducting 2,400 from the whole number on the list, the greater part were taken from Georgia and Louisiana, and all these were supposed to be comprehended in the provisions of the treaty. The slave account might therefore, said Mr. Clay, be conjectured to stand thus: 500 from Maryland and Virginia, at $280.. 250 from Louisiana, at $580.900 from Georgia, etc., at $390.

Producing, without interest..

$140,000

145,000

351,000

636,000

Of the claims for personal property other than slaves the estimated value was about $500,000. But many of these claims were, said Mr. Clay, clearly not within the terms of the Treaty of Ghent. For example, there was a large item for tobacco destroyed in 1814. It was believed that $250,000 was as large an amount as would be obtained for all the property other than slaves; and the total amount of all the private property of every kind to be paid for might be assumed to be $886,000, exclusive of interest. Ten years' interest, amounting to $531,600, would bring the total up to $1,417,600. Mr. Clay however observed that if the question of interest were submitted in each case to the arbitrator, the amount might be less. The lot would have to be cast in each case; and on the supposition that the British arbitrator would be chosen as often as the American and that he would disallow the claim for interest, one-half should be deducted from the preceding estimate, or $265,800. Subtracting this from the aggregate above mentioned, it would leave $1,151,800 as the highest sum which would probably be awarded by the commission. This sum might therefore be treated in the negotiation as a minimum. Mr. Clay observed that in the estimates laid before Parliament for that year there was an item of £250,000, to cover the awards of the commission. This was nearly the sum which the United States had mentioned as a minimum. In the course of his instructions

1 Am. State Papers, For. Rel. VI. 344.

Mr. Clay clearly pointed out the vicious plan of the convention, whereby the commissioners were required to cast lots for an arbitrator in each case of difference; a plan likely to result in confused and contradictory decisions as well as in delay.'

The British Government did not receive Mr.

British Reply. Clay's propositions with favor. On the contrary, Mr. Vaughan, the British envoy at Washington, in a note to Mr. Clay of April 12, 1826, summed up the result of the correspondence on the subject between Messrs. King and Canning at London, by saying that His Majesty's government regretted to find themselves "under the absolute impossibility of accepting the terms of compromise offered by the envoy from the United States in London." Mr. Vaughan furthermore declared that His Majesty's government could not admit that the question of interest should be referred to arbitration-that the demand for interest was unwarranted by the convention, and was declared to be unfounded by the law officers of the Crown. Mr. Clay, expressing surprise at these declarations, pointed out that the question of interest was not the only one which the British commissioner had refused to refer, and that if his refusal to cooperate in the choice of an arbitrator should be upheld it would virtually be making him the final judge of every question of difference that arose in the joint commission.3 Mr. Vaughan in reply maintained that each commissioner must judge for himself as to the course he would take, and observed that while the British commissioner had refused to refer certain questions, the American commissioner had done the like in respect of the question as to the inspection by claimants of the evidence in the possession of the British Government. Responding to this observation, Mr. Clay said. that the proposal of the British commissioner to refer the question as to the inspection of the list of deported slaves was an abstract proposal, there being at the time no case under examination to which it attached itself, and that at a subsequent period of the proceedings the American commissioner offered to refer that and every other question on which he and his colleague might disagree to the arbitration prescribed by the

Am. State Papers, For. Rel. VI. 339.

2 Am. State Papers, For. Rel. VI. 746.

3 Mr. Clay to Mr. Vaughan, April 15, 1826. (Am. State Papers, For. Rel. VI. 746.)

4 Am. State Papers, For. Rel. VI. 749.

convention. There was also much discussion between Mr. Clay and Mr. Vaughan of the subject of interest and of the sover eignty of Dauphin Island in 1815. On the question of interest, Mr. Clay sought the opinion of Mr. Wirt, then Attorney. General, who advised that interest was a necessary part of the indemnification awarded by the Emperor of Russia, and that the refusal of the British commissioner to refer the point to one of the arbitrators was not warranted by the convention.2

ment of Commissioners.

On the 8th of December 1825 the comContinued Disagree- missioners, pursuant to their adjournment, reconvened, but only to renew their disputes, which often assumed the character of personal controversy. By the refusal to refer questions to the arbitrators the provisions of the convention for the settlement of differences between the commissioners were rendered wholly nugatory. On one occasion Mr. Cheves proposed, as Mr. Jackson maintained that interest was excluded by the conven tion, to refer the simple question whether it was so excluded to one of the arbitrators as a difference resulting from the "stipulations" of that instrument. This proposition also Mr. Jackson declined.

Gallatin's Negotia

tions.

On the 10th of May 1826 Albert Gallatin was commissioned as envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of the United States to Great Britain. On the 21st of June Mr. Clay delivered to him a copy of the journal of the commissioners, who had adjourned on the 10th of that month till the 6th of the following December. It showed that they had since their last preceding adjournment made not the "smallest advance" toward the completion of the business before them. Mr. Clay instructed Mr. Gallatin to consider the instructions addressed to Mr. King on the subject as still in force and applicable to his mission; but, if the British Government should still refuse either to compromise the claims or to instruct its commissioner to refer questions in dispute, to propose to submit the various points of difference to the Emperor of Russia. Mr. Gallatin had his first interview with Mr. Canning at the foreign office on the 1st of August 1826, when Mr. Cauning inquired whether he was not authorized to settle the controversy as to the Treaty of Ghent

1 Am. State Papers, For. Rel. VI. 751.

2 Id. VI. 950.

3 Id. VI. 345.

by compromise. Mr. Gallatin replied that he was, but that as Mr. Canning had simply rejected as inadmissible the proposal made by Mr. King any overtures on the subject must come from the British Government. Mr. Canning said that it appeared to His Majesty's government that the sum demanded by Mr. King was equal to the whole amount of the claims filed, including interest.1 Mr. Gallatin, however, adhered to his determination not to discuss the question of amount till overtures on the subject had been made by Great Britain. He discovered that while there was great reluctance to recede from the ground already taken in support of Mr. Jackson there was also a disposition to settle. On the 13th of September Mr. Gallatin reported that he had received private information that the British Government was disposed to offer £250,000, then equivalent to $1,188,000, a sum which, after making allowance for the two years' interest which had since accrued, was only a trifle below the amount named by Mr. Clay in his instructions to Mr. King." This sum Mr. Gallatin was authorized to accept. But before this authorization was received the British Government had made a formal offer of $1,200,000; and Mr. Gallatin, basing his estimates on the instructions then in his possession, had offered as an ultimatum to accept $1,204,960, and the British Government had agreed to pay it."

A convention to that effect was concluded New Convention. by Mr. Gallatin on the 13th of November 1826. It provided for the payment of $1,204,960, current money of the United States, in full satisfaction of all sums claimed or claimable from Great Britain under the award of the Emperor of Russia and the convention made to carry it into effect. It was provided that this sum should be paid at Washington in two equal installments, the first twenty days after the British minister in the United States should have been officially notified of the ratification of the convention by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, and the second on August 1, 1827. The convention of 1822 was annulled, save as to the second article, relating to the average value of slaves, which had been carried into effect,

1 Am. State Papers, For. Rel. VI, 347.

* Id. VI 348

3 Id. VI. 349.

4 Id. VI. 346.

5 Id. VI. 352.