respective losses; the rights of war acknowledge no obligation to repair its ravages." ties Postponed. Various propositions were made on either side with Treaties and Indemni- a view to an accommodation; but, as the French plenipotentiaries refused to separate the question of indemnities for captures and condemnations from that of the treaties, and the American plenipotentiaries had no authority either to recognize the treaties or to abandon the claims, an agreement was impossible. It thus became necessary to postpone the subject, or else to abandon the negotiations, which virtually meant war. The American plenipotentiaries assumed the responsibility of choosing the former alternative, and on the 30th of September 1800 signed a convention. By the second article of this convention it was deConvention of Septem-clared that the ministers plenipotentiary of the conber 30, 1800; Art. II. tracting parties, being unable to agree respecting the treaty of alliance and of amity and commerce of 1778, and the consular convention of 1788, or "upon the indemnities mutually due or claimed, the parties will negotiate on these subjects at a convenient time, and until they may have agreed upon these points the said treaties and conventions shall have no operation.” Debts and Captured Besides this article in relation to the treaties and indemnities, the following provisions of the convention may be noticed: 1. That all public ships taken by either party from the other should be restored (Article III.). 2. That property captured, but not definitively condemned, or which might be captured before the exchange of ratifications, should be mutually restored on certain proofs of ownership (Article IV.). 3. That "debts contracted by one of the two nations with individuals of the other, or by the individuals of the 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 that this clause should "not extend to indemnities claimed on account of captures or confiscations" (Article V.). The convention also provided that free ships should Other Stipulations. make free goods, but that the enemy's flag should render the goods of a neutral liable to confiscation, and that prizes should be adjudicated only by the established prize courts of the country. Article XVIII. of the treaty of amity and commerce of 1778 was renewed, with the proviso that its stipulations should not extend beyond the privileges of the most favored nation. No limit was set to the operation of the convention. With this exception, and that of compensation for captures and condemnations, it substantially conformed to Pickering's ultimata. The Senate approved the convention with the proviso Expunction of Article II. that Article II. should be "expunged," and the duration of the convention limited to eight years from the exchange of ratifications. The convention as thus amended was returned to Am. State Papers, For. Rel. II. 332, Paris with a view to the exchange of ratifications. The French ministers refused to agree to an unconditional suppression of the second article, but insisted that, if it was stricken out, "the reciprocal pretensions" to which it related "should not be brought forward at any future period." Murray being without authority to enter into an engagement to this effect, Bonaparte, as first consul, ratifying the convention in the name of the French people, inserted in his act of ratification the proviso, that by the expunction of the second article "the two states renounce the respective pretensions, which are the object of the said article." The ratifications were exchanged at Paris on the 31st of July 1801. When the convention was sent back to the United States, the President, in view of the form of the French ratification, deemed it "most safe, as a precedent, to ask anew the sanction of the Senate to the instrument with that ingredient," though he did not regard the declaratory clause as more than a legitimate inference from the rejection by the Senate of the second article." 93 The Senate, on the 19th of December, declared that it considered the convention "as fully ratified," and returned it to the President for promulgation. It was proclaimed on the 21st of December." 66 Execution of the Convention. In returning the convention as amended by the Senate to the envoys in Paris, the Acting Secretary of State in March 1801 said: "We are carrying the convention into execution in all its parts. All hostilities on the sea have been forbidden; our vessels are returning into port; the prison rs in our possession are in course of delivery to M. Letombe, former consul of France; he is notified that all those officers may resume their functions; commercial intercourse is restored; a number of our vessels actually cleared out and departed for France, and orders given for the restitution of vessels under the third article of the convention." On the 3d of January, however, Talleyrand had instructed the Council of Prizes “to adjourn to an indefinite period all decisions upon every kind of property seized under the flag of the United States," though he promised, as soon as the convention should be ratified on both sides, "to urge forward a decree of the consuls, which shall replevy for the Americans all the prizes restitution of which has been engaged for."5 Nonexecution by The restitutions claimed by the United States, as defined by Madison, embraced (1) cases of capture in which there had been no judicial proceedings; (2) cases carried before the French tribunals, but not definitively decided on the 30th of September 1800, and (3) captures made subsequently to that day.7 On the 10th of December 1801, Chancellor Robert R. Livingston, who had become minister plenipotentiary to France, reported that "the Council of Prizes were still condemning in the very face of the treaty," and that the 1 Am. State Papers, For. Rel. VI. 148. 3 Am. State Papers, For. Rel. VI. 155. 4 Am. State Papers, For. Rel. II. 345. Am. State Papers, For. Rel. VI. 149. Id. 154. debts due to American citizens remained unpaid. In communications subsequently made to the French Government he complained (1) that the government had omitted to take proper measures for the payment of debts; (2) that it refused to make compensation for vessels detained in French ports under general embargoes, or under other measures looking to the application of the cargo for the government's advantage; (3) that it refused to restore property directly, without the intervention of the Council of Prizes, whose dilatory proceedings were ruinous to claimants; (4) that the Council of Prizes condemned property on grounds incompatible with the provisions of the fourth article of the convention; (5) that, even where a vessel was acquitted, the Council of Prizes, instead of awarding costs and damages or even restoring the thing captured in the same condition as when taken, directed it to be restored as it was at the date of restitution, and charged the costs of detention, storage, and other expenditures to the captured, and (6) that the government refused to restore captures made prior to September 30, 1800, even where they had not been finally decided on, on the ground that they fell under the second article of the convention. The last complaint Livingston afterward withdrew, saying that it could not be supported by the convention.1 Retrocession of Louisiana to France. The negotiations in relation to claims soon underwent a great change. On the 1st of October 1800, the day after the signature of the convention between the United States and France, a treaty was concluded between France and Spain at St. Ildefonso, by which Louisiana was retroceded to the former power. Though this treaty was kept secret and its existence persistently denied, within a year after its conclusion rumors of the transaction reached the United States. When Livingston arrived in France in November 1801 he was privately assured that both Louisiana and the Floridas had been purchased by France. Talleyrand explicitly denied that anything had been concluded. On the 20th of November, however, Rufus King sent to Madison from London a copy of a treaty between France and Spain, signed at Madrid on the 21st of the preceding March, by which the retrocession of Louisiana was explicitly declared, and the details of the transaction fully set forth.3 Claims and New Orleans. When Livingston became convinced that the retrocession had been made, he was not slow to perceive its possible effects on the relations between France and the United States, and he set himself to work to obtain the cession of New Orleans to the United States. As an argument for this purpose he pressed the American claims. Tested either by the advantages received by the debtor, or by the loss sustained by the creditor, no claims could, he declared, stand on stronger ground than those of American citizens against France. They were "chiefly founded upon contracts, for articles of the first necessity, furnished when the want of them would have plunged France in the utmost distress." Moreover it was, he said, to be remembered that while Great Britain was "of late very amply compensating by full payment of principal, interest, and damages, for any illegal Am. State Papers, For. Rel. VI. 156, 157, 159, 161, 164. 2 Adams's History of the United States, I. 409. Am. State Papers, For. Rel. II. 511. captures made during the war, compensation for those which fell under the description in France has in a great measure been given up by the late convention, and that due for the remaining few, which ought to have been satisfied by that treaty, has been eluded by some very extraordinary decisions of the Council of Prizes, or by that delay which all the claims of American citizens have hitherto met with."1 In January 1803 Monroe was joined with Livingston Louisiana Cession. in the mission to France. Before he reached Paris, Bonaparte, who desired funds for the approaching war with Great Britain, had determined to sell not only New Orleans, but the whole of Louisiana. Monroe arrived in time to participate in the final negotiations, which were protracted by discussions as to the price to be paid for the cession.3 On the 30th of April 1803 a "treaty" and two "conventions" were signed. The treaty ceded Louisiana to the United States. One of the conventions provided for the payment by the United States to France of the sum of 60,000,000 francs; the other, for the payment by the United States of "debts" due by France to citizens of the United States, to an amount not to exceed the sum of 20,000,000 francs. It is with the latter convention that we are here Claims Commission. concerned. It provided: 1. That "debts due by France to citizens of the United States," contracted before September 30, 1800, should be paid, with interest at 6 per cent, to commence from the period when the accounts and vouchers were presented to the French Government (Article I.). 2. That the debts thus provided for were "those whose result is comprised in the conjectural note annexed to the present convention," but that claims comprised in the note but falling within any specific exception in the convention should not be admitted (Article II.). 3. That the preceding articles should comprehend no debts but such as were still due for supplies, embargoes, and prizes made at sea, in which the appeal had been properly lodged within the time mentioned in the convention of September 30, 1800 (Article IV.). 4. That the benefits of the convention should be limited (1) To captures of which the Council of Prizes had ordered restitution and in respect of which the claimant might, in case the captors were insufficient, have recourse to the French Government (Article V.). (2) To the debts mentioned in Article V. of the convention of September 30, 1800, the payment of which had been claimed of the government and in respect of which the creditors had a right to the protection of the United States (Article V.). 5. From the benefits of the convention there were expressly excluded(1) Prizes whose condemnation had been or should be confirmed (Article V.). (2) Reclamations of American citizens "who shall have established houses of commerce in France, England, or other countries than the United States, in partnership with foreigners, and who by that reason and the 1 Am. State Papers, For. Rel. II. 538. 2 Am. State Papers, For. Rel. II. 475. 3 Adams's History of the United States, II. Chap. 1. nature of their commerce ought to be regarded as domiciliated in the places where such houses exist" (Article V.). (3) "All agreements and bargains concerning merchandise, which shall not be the property of American citizens, saving, however, to such persons their claims in like manner as if this treaty had not been made" (Article V.). 6. For the ascertainment of the debts due under the convention, it was provided that the minister of the United States should name three persons, who should act "from the present and provisionally," and who should have power (1) To examine, without removing the documents, the claims "already liquidated" by the French bureaus, and, if they should find such claims to be within the convention and not within any of its exceptions, to certify that the debt was due to an American citizen, and that it existed before September 30, 1800, on which certificate the creditor should be entitled to an order on the Treasury of the United States (Article VI.). (2) To examine, without removing the documents, claims "prepared for verification," and to certify those that ought to be admitted (Article VII.). (3) Likewise to examine claims "not prepared for liquidation," and to certify in writing those that ought to be admitted to liquidation (Article VIII.). But, in order that no improper demands might be admitted, it was provided (4) That the commercial agent of the United States at Paris, or such other agent as the American minister should nominate, should assist at the operations of the bureaus; that if he should be of opinion that any debt was not completely proved or was inadmissible, but the bureaus "should think that it ought to be liquidated,” he should report thereon to the board established by the United States, who, without removing the documents, should examine the debt and vouchers and report the result to the American minister; and that the latter should "transmit his obervations, in all such cases, to the minister of the treasury of the French republic, on whose report the French Government shall decide definitively in every case" (Article X.). It was further provided that the rejection of any claim should have no other effect than to exempt the United States from the payment of it, the French Government reserving to itself the right to decide definitively on such claim so far as concerned itself (Article X.). 7. It was provided that every necessary decision should be made within a year from the exchange of the ratifications of the convention, and that no claim should be admitted afterward (Article XI.). 8. It was provided that the principal and interest of the debts allowed should be discharged by the United States, by orders drawn by their minister plenipotentiary on their Treasury, which orders should be payable sixty days after the exchange of the ratifications of the treaty and conventions, and after possession of Louisiana should be given to the United States (Article III.): and finally, 9. That debts contracted by the Government of France with citizens of the United States since September 30, 1800, might be pursued in the same manner as if the present convention had not been made (Article XII.). |