ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

1

again, which have fully answered our purposes, were struck out by Mr. Marbois's wish to give a preference to debts that had a certain degree of priority in the French bureaus. The moment was critical; the question of peace or war was in the balance, and it was important to come to a conclusion before either scale preponderated. I considered the convention a trifle compared with the other great object." Livingston was justified in taking this view of the matter, but his statement shows the manner in which the convention was pieced together. By the preamble the object of the convention was declared to be to secure the payment of the sums due by France to citizens of the United States, in compliance "with the second and fifth articles" of the convention of September 30, 1800. This declaration was on its face misleading, since the claims mentioned in the second article of the convention of 1800 were first postponed and then abandoned. The real object of the convention was correctly expressed by Livingston and Monroe, when, in first transmitting it to their government, they stated that they had obtained not exceeding 20,000,000 francs for the citizens of the United States "in discharge of the debts due to them by France, under the convention of 1800." This fact was repeatedly stated by Livingston. There was, however, some ground for the assertion of Skipwith, that it was "a convention of exceptions to the one of 1800."4

Omitted Claims.

The particulars in which the convention of 1803 failed to include claims embraced in that of 1800 were:

1. The convention of 1800 provided for the restitution of vessels and property taken and condemned between the date of its signature and the date of its ratification. The convention of 1803 restricted claims for captures to cases in which the Council of Prizes had ordered restitution.

2. Among the cases that came within the convention of 1800 were claims for freight. By the convention of 1803 the claims were confined to debts "for supplies, for embargoes, and prizes made at sea;" and, as has been seen, the claims for captures were limited to those in which restitution had been decreed. In the French text the equivalent of the word “supplies" was "fournitures." Livingston contended that under these terms claims for freight were admissible; the commissioners took the opposite view."

3. By Article V. of the convention of 1800 provision was made for the payment of "debts contracted by one of the two nations with individuals of the other." By the convention of 1803 it was provided that this stipulation should not comprehend any claims of American citizens who had established houses of commerce abroad in partnership with foreigners. This provision seemed to exclude even the individual claims of citizens of the United States who had entered into such partnerships.

Livingston to Madison, May 3, 1804, Am. State Papers, For. Rel. VI. 196. 2 Am. State Papers, May 13, 1803, For. Rel. II. 559.

3 Am. State Papers, For. Rel. VI. 186, 196.

*Am. State Papers, For. Rel. VI. 187.

old. 188, 190, 191.

Rules of Decision.

Madison instructed Livingston to enter into an arrangement with France for the adjustment of claims embraced in the convention of 1800, but excluded by that of 1803; and, if this could not be done, to endeavor to concert with the French Government such a construction of the latter convention as would be most favorable to all just claims, and especially to those for "freights, indemnities, property put in requisition, and the separate property of individuals" who had established houses abroad in partnership with foreigners. The French Government declined to enter into any new arrangement. It concurred with Livingston, however, in his construction of the word "supplies" or "fournitures." "It can not be supposed," said Marbois, "that the negotiators wished to give a preference to one kind of claims, to the prejudice of money lent, or of debts due for freight; in fine, this meaning is grammatical; for money and all kinds of means of service are furnished, and this also embraces freight." This reasoning was not satisfactory to the commissioners, who maintained that the word "fourniture" could not supply the place of the word "fret," though they held that it might apply to money lent. The principles on which the commissioners acted were stated by them as follows:2

"We consider the claims of American citizens upon the French Government under the convention of 1800, as directed to be settled according to the regulations and principles established in that under which we have been appointed: We have therefore considered it our duty to inquire:

"1st. Whether the Debt was due in its origin to an American citizen. "2ndly. Whether it existed before the 30th of September 1800. "3rdly. Has such American citizen established a House of Commerce in foreign countries in partnership with Foreigners?

"4thly. Can be by the nature of his Commerce be considered as domiciliated abroad?

"5thly. Has he under the circumstances of his case a right to the protection of the United States?

"6thly. Was the merchandize, or other property, American when it passed into the hands of the French Government?

"7thly. Does the claim arise from Supplies, Embargoes or Captures made at sea; excluding from the word Supplies,-Freight, Indemnity and Demurrage,-except when they were claimed as being incidental to Em

bargoes?

8thly. In Prize Cases we shall examine whether order of restitution has been made by the Council of Prizes? Whether the insufficiency of the captors is shown?

9thly. We consider it correct to examine the cases upon the 'Conjectural Note' before any other-to decide upon them according to their respective dates, when the state of the papers will allow us to preserve this order.

"10thly. We consider it a fair construction of the Convention that we have no authority to direct any Liquidation after the 20,000,000 of Livres shall be covered; and that our Duties here will terminate on the 21st of October next, that being the day, according to our information, which will complete the year from the time when the ratification was exchanged at Washington.

Having completed their examination of the claims Forms of Certificates. on the conjectural note, the commissioners, on the 15th of May 1804, no returns having been made by the French offices of any final liquidations in the cases already certified, pro

'Am. State Papers, For Rel. VI. 190.

2 Commissioners to Livingston, April 30, 1804, MSS. Dept. of State; Am. State Papers, For. Rel. VI. 193.

ceeded to examine claims not on the note, and to grant conditional certificates in cases found to be within the convention, the condition being that "the amount of principal and interest found due on those claims heretofore certified for liquidation shall not exceed the sum of 20 millions of livres." Of the usual forms of the certificates (1) in cases on the conjectural note, and (2) in cases not on that note, the following examples may be given:

“The case of Messieurs Dunlap & Irwin-Supplies, &c.-originating in the 6th year of the French Republic, and marked No. 121, on the Conjectural Note; The Board having fully examined the Documents & Papers regularly certified to them in this Case, and which are to be considered as a Part of this Record, & considered all the proofs produced in relation to it, and having ascertained that the said John Dunlap and Thomas Irwin were citizens of the United States when this claim originated against the French Republic, and that in every respect it has the necessary qualifications to bring it within the description of claims intended to be provided for by the convention of the 30th of April 1803, between France and the United States, are of opinion that the said claims ought to be admitted to liquidation by the proper Department of the French Government with Interest from the period when the accounts and vouchers belonging to it were presented to the said Government:-Therefore

Ordered, that this Board do certify to the French Bureau established for the Liquidation of American claims, that the above mentioned claim of John Dunlap & Thomas Irwin, so far as the same is made for supplies, ought to be admitted to liquidation, for that amount only, with interest as above stated, and returned to this Board without delay."

"The Case of John Townsend. (Colonial Bill.) (Year 2, of the F. R. Supplem'y List No. 51.)

"In pursuance of the Rule of Proceeding adopted on the 15th of the present month (vid: page 164 of this Register) the Board having fully examined the documents and vouchers regularly certified to them in this case, (not found on the "Conjectural Note,") and which are to be considered as a part of this Record,-and having duly attended to all the proofs produced in relation to it, are of opinion, that the said claim has the qualitications necessary to bring it within the description of claims intended to be provided for by the Convention of the 30th of April, 1803, between the United States and France, provided the amount of principal and interest found due on those already certified for Liquidation shall not exceed 20 millions of livres;-therefore

Ordered, That this Board do certify to the French Bureau established for the Liquidation of American claims, that the above-mentioned claim of John Townsend ought to be admitted to Liquidation with interest, as stipulated in the Convention aforesaid,-provided that the amount of principal and interest found due on those claims heretofore certified for liquidation shall not exceed the sum of 20 millions of livres: this liquidation to stand according to the date of the claims, and in reference to the respective periods at which other claims, not found on the Conjectural Note, originated."

The form of a certificate of disallowance was as follows:

"The Elie Cabot-claiming for Cargo and Indemnity, etc. (Originating in the 4th year of the French Republic, and marked No. 88 on the "Conjectural Note"):

"The Board having fully examined the documents and vouchers regularly certified to them in this Case and which are to be considered as a part of this Record, and having duly attended to all the proofs produced in relation to it, are of opinion that the said claim is excluded from the

MSS. Dept, of State.

Benefit of the Convention of the 30th of April 1803 between the United States and France, and ought not to be certified for liquidation to the French Bureau."

On the 5th of October 1804 the commissioners inRight of Final Decision. formed Livingston that they had directed 324 claims to be liquidated and had rejected 142, and that only 5 yet remained to be decided. Few prize cases had been brought before them; the greater part of such cases were either still pending before the Council of Prizes, or else were in the course of judicial pursuit by the claimants for the purpose of ascertaining the situation of the captors. But, although the business of the board was thus practically completed, the French offices continued to withhold returns of final liquidation; and early in October the commissioners learned that the Council of Liquidation asserted the right to liquidate claims which they had rejected, and to reject claims which they had certified for liquidation. This position was assumed in accordance with the view, in which Livingston and Marbois concurred, that under Article X. of the convention the final decision of claims rested with the French Government. The commissioners took the ground that under Article VI. of the convention their certificate was necessary to enable the minister of the United States to draw on its Treasury. In 23 cases in which the Council of Liquidation assumed to liquidate claims which they had rejected, the commissioners submitted to the minister of the United States a detailed report, showing that their action in each case was based on the fact that the claim was excluded by one or more of the principles adopted by the board for the government of its decisions. Moreover, the commissioners were informed by Skipwith that the Council of Liquidation, besides liquidating rejected claims, refused to liquidate 45 claims certified by the board for that purpose.

Commissioners' Ad

3

It has been seen that by the eleventh article of the convention it was provided that "every necessary decijournment. sion" should be made within a year from the exchange

of the ratifications, and that "no reclamation" should be admitted afterward. The ratifications were exchanged on the 21st of October 1803. On October 21, 1804, the board being then in session, Mercer entered on the record a protest "against keeping the register cpen after the present date and against all and every act hereafter performed by this commission under anthority of the aforesaid convention." The board, however, continued in session from day to day, in order to be "in readiness to make any further official reports which the proceedings of the French Council of Liquidation might render necessary," till the 24th of November. On that day they received from General Armstrong, who had just succeeded Chancellor Livingston as minister of the United States, a letter stating that Livingston and Marbois had settled the construction of the convention as to the character of the voucher required to enable the minister of

1 MSS. Dept. of State.

2 Commissioners to Livingston, August 13, 1804, MSS. Dept. of State.

3 Commissioners to Livingston, October 12, 1804, MSS. Dept. of State.

4 Am. State Papers, Fr. Rel. VI. 187, 188, 189, 202, 203.

MSS. Register of the Commissioners, 376, et seq.

the United States to draw in favor of claimants, and had agreed that the mandat of the French Government formed such a voucher, thus carrying out the principle that the final decision rested with that government.' The commissioners thereupon adopted an order in which, after stating that they had learned from the minister of the United States that their further services either as to the final rejection or the liquidation of claims were "rendered unnecessary," they declared that they would continue their services only so long as might be necessary for making up their accounts and closing their office. This order was signed by all the commissioners. On Sunday, November 25, Maclure entered on the register of the board a declaration, signed by himself alone, in which he said that, considering the statement made by Armstrong that the mandat of the French Government formed a sufficient voucher for drawing bills "to be the opinion and wish of the American Executive," he was of opinion that the functions and duties of the board were at an end, and "that at no period were their operations either useful or necessary for the accomplishment of such a settlement, no mention being made of such a voucher or mandat in the convention under the authority of which this board was constituted." Barnet signed a separate declaration, merely expressing "the opinion that the utility of this board is now at an end." The board then adjourned to Monday, November 26. The last entry in the register was made on Saturday, December 1, 1804. It states that the board had been in session, agreeably to successive adjournments, every day during the week, for the purpose of closing its business, and had rendered to the American minister an account of expenses; that it had ordered a list of the claims decided by it to be deposited with the agent of the United States for the information of any whom it might concern, the time not permitting the execution of the fifth article of the rules, and that it had also ordered that its papers be sealed up and placed in the office of the commercial agent of the United States at Paris, subject only to the order of the Government of the United States.

The board then adjourned sine die.3

The claims allowed by the board were chiefly for Results of Convention. embargoes and supplies. Only eight claims were allowed in prize cases. The rejections included claims whose owners had established houses of commerce in connection with foreigners, claims for captures made after September 30, 1800, and claims of citizens of France, or of persons who failed to establish their citizenship of the United States. Many claims on account of captures

Armstrong to the commissioners, October 23, 1804, MSS. Dept. of State. This rule provided: "In every case where the claim shall be rejected by the board, a copy of their opinion as stated upon this register shall be furnished to the claimant, his attorney, agent, or representative, if he is in Paris, and his original papers, if any, in the possession of the board remitted to him, his receipt for the same being first given to the secretary to be by him filed among the papers of this office.”

The formal record of the proceedings of the commission is contained in two manuscript volumes in the Department of State, one of which is entitled "American Commission, Paris, 1803: Register A;" and the other, "American Commission, Paris, 1803: Letter Book, No. 1."

5627-VOL. 5-4

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »