for forcible seizures or detentions, is of very high im portance, and is to be pressed with the greatest earnestness, yet it is not to be insisted on as an indispensable condition of the proposed treaty. You are not, however, to renounce these claims of our citizens, or to stipulate that they be assumed by the United States as a loan to the French govern

ment.'

The envoys repaired to France, and the mission, it is well known, proved abortive. On the 3rd of April, 1798, the President communicated to the two Houses of Congress, a copy of his instructions given to the envoys and of their dispatches. This communication was read with closed doors. In the House of Representatives a motion was made to publish it; but this was deemed so imprudent by that body that the motion received the votes of but a few members. The friends of the administration, as well as its enemies, concurred in the opinion, that while our differences remained unadjusted, it would be unwise to apprise our enemy of the extent to which, in order to insure an accommodation, our commissioners had been instructed to go. It would have been well if this caution had guided the deliberations of the Senate. But that assembly, actuated by the sole motive of vindicating and justifying the measures of the Executive, and of holding up to reprobation the conduct of France, to the surprise of the House and of their country, at the very moment when the House, impelled by more magnanimous sentiments, had determined to maintain the secrecy of the communication, ordered it to be printed. By this spirited act, said their apologists, we will shew our countrymen that the Rubicon is passed: the timid accents of conciliation shall no longer annoy us. With this te mper, Mr. Tracy announced the policy of waging a war of extermination, in which every man, woman,

175445

and child in America, should be engaged against every man, woman and child in France; and, with a similar temper, the sedition act threatened with incarceration, and the alien act with exile, the person of every man that dared to impugn the motives of the government.

Thus stood the affairs between the two nations until a wandering impulse of patriotism induced Mr. Adams to name another embassy to France. What were the instructions given on this occasion do not appear. We may, however, reasonably infer that they did not materially differ from those we have already quoted. With such instructions, what could our envoys do? Had they demanded a full reparation for spoliations, as a part of the treaty, would not the vigilance of the French government have confronted them with the previous declaration of Mr. Adams that it was "not to be insisted on as an indispensable condition of the proposed treaty." The declaration, by the highest authority, must be considered as a virtual abandonment of the claims; for it admits the formation of a treaty of friendship with France without any recognition of the obligation of the French government to satisfy them; and leaves this adjustment entirely to the chances of futurity.

Thus tramelled, our envoys did their best. They negociated a treaty, in which they did all their instructions required. They did more. They not only steered clear of a renunciation of the claims, but also paved the way to their ultimate adjustment by their recognition in the following stipula

tions:

"Art. 2. The Ministers plenipotentiary of the two parties not being able to agree at present respecting the treaty of alliance of sixth February, one thousand seven hundred and seventy-eight, the treaty of amity and commerce of the same date,

and the convention of the fourteenth November, one thousand seven hundréd and seventy-eight, nor upon the indemnities mutually due or claimed; the parties will negociate further on these subjects at a convenient time, and until they may have agreed upon these points, the said treaties and convention shall have no operation, and the relations of the two countries shall be regulated as follows: &c."

"Art. 5th. The debts contracted by one of the two nations with individuals of the other, by the individuals of 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 this clause shall not extend to indemnities claimed on account of captures or confiscations."

This treaty, containing these stipulations, was laid before the Senate by Mr. Adams in the winter of 1800-1. That body, then decidedly federal, refused to advise the ratification of the treaty unless the second article was expunged. To prove this beyond all question, we shall give the votes on that occasion.

Messrs. Armstrong, Bingham, Chipman, Dayton, D. Foster, Hillhouse, Hindman, Howard, Lattimer, J. Mason, Morris, Paine, Read, Ross, Schureman, Tracy, and Wells, voted for striking out the second article: and Messrs. Anderson, Baldwin, Bloodworth, Brown, Cocke, T. Foster, Franklin, Greene, Langdon, Livermore, Marshal, S. T. Mason, and Nicholas, voted against it.

The expunging this article was equivalent to the abandonment of the claims of our merchants for spoliated property; it being well established that silence respecting any claim existing at the formation of a treaty amounts to a relinquishment of it.

1

Independently however of this construction of treaties, the 5th article, which forms a part of the treaty as ratified, expressly declares that that clause "shall not extend to indemnities claimed on account of captures or confiscations."

In this sense the treaty was understood by the French government, when received by them for ratification, as they declare in that very act; the expression is bien entendu, it being well understood that by the retrenchment of the second article the two nations renounce the respective pretensions that are the objects of it. Returned to the Senate, with this ratification on the part of the French government, that body decided that it ought to be considered as fully ratified. On this occasion all the federal members, excepting Messrs. Wells, Hillhouse, Chipman, and D. Foster, voted in the affirmative. And their vote would seem, from the open avowal of their sentiments, to have arisen from an indisposition to any treaty whatever with France.

This treaty with France has been faithfully observed; so faithfully that even the misconstruction of party has raised but a solitary clamour, and this not so much on account of any failure of duty towards France, as from an alleged excess of it. The case alluded to is that of the Berceau, the facts relative to which are these:

On the fifth of April, Mr. Griswold offered a resolution that the secretary of state be directed to report whether the sum of 32,839 dollars and 54 cents, expended in the repairs put upon the corvette Berceau, before the delivery to the French Republic, was made to equip her for the service of the United States, or for the purpose of delivering her in good condition to the French Republic, in conformity to the stipulations of the convention with France.

As the measures of the executive on this subject have been variously represented, it may be proper concisely to state them.

On the 30th of September 1800, a convention was entered into at Paris by the commissioners of the United States and France restoring true and sincere friendship between the two nations, the third article of which directed that the public ships which had been taken on one part and the other, or which might be taken before the exchange of ratifications, should be restored. In the month of the ensuing February the Senate advised a ratification of the convention under certain terms, which it was not believed would be objected to by France. Previously to the signing of this instrument, on the 12th of October, 1800, the Berceau, a French national ship, had been captured by an American frigate, and condemned as legal prize on the 17th of November. On the 19th of December, 1800, Mr. Stoddert, the secretary of the navy, directed his agent at Boston to cause her to be purchased for the United States, and afterwards to have her placed where she would be secure, with just as many men on board as should be necessary to take care of her; but to make no repairs. In obedi.. ence to these instructions she was dismantled on the 30th of December; and on the 15th of January, she was bought in by the navy agent for 13,349 dollars. In March the French commercial agent represented to the secretary of state the destitute state of the French prisoners taken on board the Berceau, no funds having been provided by France for their relief, and requested advances, reimbursable by his government. In consequence of this representation, the secretary of the navy ins ructed his agent to furnish each person, before his delivery, with such cheap clothing as should be sufficient, with what he had, to make him comforta