CHAPTER VII.

ACCOUNT OF THE CLAIMS ON FRANCE AND NAPLES.

Very perplexing though important subject-Difficulty began in 1778— French in 1793 captured American vessels-First class of claims→ Embargo at Bordeaux-Convention of 1800-Claims of two governments respectively renounced-United States responsible to their own citizens-Convention of 1803-Second class of claims-French credit very bad-Convention of 1803 defective on subject of claims-Livingston instructed to negotiate an additional one-France declines— Claims amount to from 8 to 11,000,000 dollars-Continental system -Third class-History of those claims-French government have never answered statement of American government-Paid every body in Europe-Refuse even to liquidate-Seek to couple them with business of Louisiana-Nothing in fact done since 1816-Naples-Pinkney sent to that court in 1816-Discusses the claim with the Marquess di Circello-Long letter-Vindicating the principle of the demandCircello refuses the application-Denies that Naples is responsibleNo other European government gone so far-Nothing more done.

THIS topic is exceedingly complicated and perplexing;— for its origin we must look back to the first treaty of 1778 with France; the two succeeding conventions, containing express and, apparently, precise stipulations on the subject, have only added to the confusion and difficulty. And as the government (for reasons, which do not appear) has but lately disclosed the correspondence in relation to the claims, their history has for a long time remained unknown; nor is their amount even now ascertained. Still, a careful examination of this business is important and necessary, not only on account of the property, unjustly and for so long a time withheld, but it is the best illustration, we have, how little the condition of the world and the progress of this country were anticipated by the authors of the first European treaty ;

how great, on the one hand, is the difficulty of providing in a simple way for claims, not disputed, by either party;— and, on the other, how easy it has been by the use of ordinary diplomatic subtleties and fallacies to postpone, year after year, demands, the justice of which no one undertakes to deny.

Twelve years after the treaty of "78 was concluded, America was formally invoked to guaranty, under the stipulation of the 11th article, the French islands in the West India seas, at that time surpassing all others in their richness and flourishing state of cultivation. This demand, though just and well founded, was not complied with, for reasons, we have endeavoured to explain in the second chapter on France. In 1793, the French began to capture our vessels, irritated at the course, pursued by this government. And as early as September of the next year, we find the claims arranged under separate heads, though there are no means within reach of ascertaining the precise amount of each class. 1. Injuries by the embargo at Bordeaux July 1793;— the number of vessels detained under this act was said to be 103.*

"The object of this embargo was declared to be (though most probably not the true one) to detect some English vessels, known to be trading between Bordeaux and England under the American and other flags, and with forged, or 'assimilated,' papers. On this subject Mr. Fauchet writes to Mr. Randolph, ' As to the embargo on American vessels, imperious circumstances, the salvation of the country, have imposed that measure; but the interests of none will be injured, and to convince you of this, I recite an extract of a letter which I have just received from citizen Tallien, representative of the people at Bordeaux.' It is possible,' he writes to me, 'that some malevolent persons may make use of this pretext (the embargo) to disturb the harmony, existing between the Americans and us, or may represent this measure as a violation of treaties between the two nations; the interest of individuals may, for a moment, cause the general interest to disappear. It is then to you, brave republican, and the true friend of your country, that we consign the care of defending it to Congress; (should the measure happen to be there calumniated) say to our brethren, that it is the intention of the committee of public safety, the ac

2. For supplies furnished St. Domingo.

3. Cargoes of provisions, &c. detained for delay of payment. 4. Vessels detained by cruisers of the French republic in violation of the treaty of "78.

5. Vessels taken at sea as above.

The demands on France kept continually increasing to the close of the century, principally, however, for depredations in the West Indies. In another place, we have given a list of the decrees under the protection of which assaults were committed on our commerce and property. These claims, as created to the close of the century, were finally renounced on the part of the United States by the 2d article of the convention of 1800, provided France abandoned all her pretensions on the score of a guaranty. By this act the American government virtually assumed the demands of its own citizens. Not only the constitution forbids the government from taking "private property" for public use "without just compensation," but, in this case, a full equivalent, the surrender of the guaranty, was made by France for the adoption of the claims by the United States. But hardly was the instrument signed, when fresh claims arose on the construction of the provision, intended to constitute a final settlement. No one would have supposed that an article, inserted in a convention for the purpose of bringing this troublesome business to a close, would have made it necessary for our own government to enter into immediate explanations in behalf of its own citi

tual centre of the French government, to indemnify all the owners or captains, who, by operation of the embargo, have been obliged to remain a length of time in France, and that the proposition, which will soon be made to them, in the name of the committee, will be advantageous to both nations.'

"On the 18 November '94, a decree was passed, making provision to indemnify for the detention by the Bordeaux embargo, and for supplies (by contract and by force) furnished to the administration of St. Domingo; but the provision was not carried into effect, owing to the deranged state of the French finances. The decree itself, however, was a standing and conclusive proof of the obligation, the acknowledgment and the promise of the French government, to indemnify these claims."

zens, or that 20,000,000 of livres would have remained more than twenty years in the coffers of our treasury, expressly reserved, by a subsequent convention, for the payment of a portion of these claims. The restitutions, demanded by the United States, under the 4th article of the convention of 1800, comprised three descriptions of cases.

1. Cases of capture, where no judicial proceedings were held.

2. Cases, not definitively decided on in French tribunals the 30 September 1800.

3. Captures made, subsequent to that date.

Under the 3d and 4th articles these claims were just, and to withhold the property was, on the part of France, an act of complete injustice. It has been said, that by the 2d article of the convention of 1800, the United States adopted all the claims of its citizens, subject to the three reservations above written. This constitutes the first period in the history of these claims.

Then, as the next period, we have the third convention of 1803, by which this government agreed to assume claims on France, prior to the 30th Sept. 1800, for 20,000,000 livres, no settlement having been made of the disputed points under the convention of 1800. Hardly was this convention ratified, when a variety of difficulties again arose. Shall we call this a fatal influence these claims have not been able to shake off to this day, or were the instruments framed with haste, or, in the desire to be relieved, in the one case, of the guaranty of '78, and, in the other, to secure the acquisition of Louisiana, were objects of less weight and moment treated with precipitation? At any rate, in less than a year after the convention of 1803, instructions were sent to the minister in France to desire the French government to suspend all draughts in favour of persons, whose claims might have been liquidated, till all the claims were ascertained, and to

* A commission, appointed under this convention, for the adjustment of these claims, reported the sums allowed to the French minister of the treasury, who had an authority to draw on the American government.

propose a convention for the purpose of including, within that of 1803, the unsettled matters of 1800, or to distribute the 20,000,000 livres, provided by the convention of 1803, and make France debtor for such balance, as might exceed that sum;-an arrangement we could not suppose France would be much disposed to accept. After the proofs we possessed of the extreme unwillingness of that government to satisfy the undeniable claims of our citizens,-to execute the 3d and 4th articles of the convention of 1800, it was a degree of generous confidence, by no means desirable or necessary among nations, to leave any point, whatever, for future discussion, particularly as the mode, in which American creditors were likely to be treated, was well known to Mr. Livingston in March 1802. We find him in that month writing to this effect to the government:

"As to the contract demands, the Minister of Marine told me, I might as well ask him to cut off his father's head, as to ask payment. However, on this subject I shall be better informed, when they reply to my note. I believe that they may possibly put the debt upon their 5 per cent. loan, which is now at 57, but will, in that case, fall considerably, so that, at most, the creditor, after waiting many years, will sink half his debt, but, as they hint, necessity has no law.”

And, in the following May, to the Minister of Exterior Relations, to this effect:

"I find every possible obstruction thrown in their way, first in the liquidation of their debts, and next in affording a fund for their payment, when, after a tedious and expensive process, the debt is liquidated, I see the Board of Compatibility extending to part of them a law, which, at the present price of stock, would rob them of five-sixths of their capital; a law, which repeated declarations of past legislatures have shown not to have been intended to comprise foreigners, and in which they could not have been comprised without the most flagrant violation of public faith, but which, in every event, is superseded by the fifth article of the treaty, which expressly stipulates for the discharge of their debt.

"I see the commercial capital of my fellow citizens, the only means of their subsistence, withheld from them till the interest is