communicated or published at the same time the United States would, with respect to the promised revocation of the Berlin and Milan decrees, have taken that ground which ultimately led to war with Great Britain. It is indeed unnecessary to comment on such a glaring act of combined injustice, bad faith, and meanness as to the enactment and concealment of that decree exhibits." Gallatin was Secretary of the Treasury under Madison, and in commenting on the secret Trianon decree it may be surmised that he recalled the harassing doubts of that time, when the administration, though acting on the assumption that the Berlin and Milan decrees had been revoked, could show no authentic proof of it. Even after the United States declared war against England no order was given to carry the revocation into effect, though in May 1812 the Duke of Bassano had exhibited to Joel Barlow, then minister of the United States at Paris, a pretended decree of April 28, 1811, by which it was declared that the prior decrees had not been enforced as to American vessels since November 1, 1810. On the 15th of April 1816, Monroe, as Secretary of Gallatin's Negotiations. State, instructed Gallatin, who had then been appointed envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary to France, to renew the subject of the spoliation claims, which had for some time been suspended. The management of the negotiation was committed to Gallatin's discretion. On the 9th of November he addressed to the Duc de Richelieu, then minister of foreign affairs, a note in which he presented the claims with that clearness and precision with which he illuminated every subject which he undertook to discuss. He divided the claims into five classes: 1. Condemnations pronounced in violation of the provisions of the convention of September 30, 1800, down to July 31, 1809, when the convention expired. 2. The various condemnations, or rather confiscations, made under what were called "imperial decisions," by which were included, not the cases in which an appeal was taken from the Council of Prizes to the Council of State, but cases in which the order of condemnation proceeded from the latter, or from Napoleon himself, without a previous regular trial or a condemnation by the Council of Prizes. 3. Condemnations by the Council of Prizes itself without observing the forms of law. 4. Condemnations by the retrospective operation of various decrees. 5. Condemnations under the Berlin and Milan decrees, after as well as before their pretended revocation on November 1, 1810.3 6. Condemnations of vessels captured after November 1, 1810, on various pretenses, not covered by the general decrees. For the purpose of adjusting these claims, Gallatin proposed that the Government of France should engage to make compensation to the citizens of Adams's Writings of Gallatin, II. 196. 2 Adams's History of the United States, VI. 255-256. 3 Referring to a list of 48 vessels and cargoes seized prior to that day, Gallatin stated that 28 were condemned by the Council of Prizes, 18 before and 10 after April 28, 1811; and 20 by imperial decisions, 11 before and 9 after the same date. Yet, by the pretended decree of April 28, 1811, it was declared that from and after November 1, 1810, the Berlin and Milan decrees were considered as if they had not existed (comme non avenus) in respect of American vessels. the United States: 1. For all vessels and cargoes captured, seized or sequestered, which had not been definitively condemned by the Council of Prizes, and the proceeds of which were placed either in the public treasury, in the caisse d'amortissement, or in any other public chest; and also for all vessels and cargoes destroyed at sea, and likewise not condemned by the Council of Prizes. 2. For the losses sustained by reason of such other irregular or unlawful seizures, captures, or condemnations as should be decreed by a joint commission to have been made contrary to public law and justice, or in contravention of treaties. He proposed that the joint commission (or commissions) should have power (1) to liquidate the amount dne for property either destroyed at sea or sequestered and not definitively condemned, and (2) to decide in what other cases France was justly bound to make compensation, and also to what amount.1 On the 20th of January 1817 Gallatin, having received no answer to his note, had an interview with the Duc de Richelieu. The Duke stated that he could not go beyond indemnity for vessels burnt at sea, and for those the proceeds of which had been merely sequestered. He offered to make such a proposal in writing; but he subsequently decided not to do so, on the ground that, although a large part of the claims of European powers for Bonaparte's acts had been abandoned, the remainder, which France had agreed to settle, were so enormous in amount as to render the governmert unable to contract a new obligation. He gave an assurance, however, that the postponement of the American claims was not to be understood as a rejection of them, and that it was the government's intention to discharge the just demands of the United States so soon as it should be extricated from its present embarrassments. His Under these circumstances, when Gallatin left French Counter- France in 1823 the claims remained unsettled. claims. successor, James Brown, was equally unsuccessful. But, besides presenting grounds for delay, Frauce also put forward certain counterclaims, the adjustment of which she refused to separate from that of the claims of the United States. Apart from the alleged unlawful seizure and destruction of certain French vessels and other property, the principal counterclaims were those that related to the eighth article of the treaty of cession of Louisiana and to the supplies furnished by Caron de Beaumarchais during the American Revolution.3 By the seventh article of the Louisiana treaty, the Article VII. of the ratifications of which were exchanged at Washington Louisiana Treaty. October 21, 1803, it was provided that for a period of twelve years, beginning three months after notice of the exchange was given at Paris, the ships of France and Spain should be entitled to certain exclusive privileges in the ports of the ceded territory. By Article VIII. it was stipulated that "in future and forever after the expiration of the twelve years the ships of France shall be treated upon the footing of the most favored nation in the ports above mentioned." On the 15th of December 1817 M. Hyde de Neuville, the French minister at Washington, complained that French vessels were not treated in the ports of Louisiana 1 Am. State Papers, For. Rel. V. 284–287. 2 Id. 288. 3 Id. 674. on the footing of the most favored nation. The ground of this complaint was the fact that British and certain other foreign vessels, under reciprocal agreements between their governments and the Government of the United States, enjoyed in the ports of the United States, including of course those in Louisiana, certain exemptions from duty to which vessels of France and of other nations with which there was no such arrangement were not admitted. Under the eighth article France demanded for her vessels in the ports of Louisiana the rate of duty conceded to the most favored nation. The United States replied that neither British nor other foreign vessels enjoyed in Louisiana ports any gratuitous advantage; that the article in question did not contemplate the concession to France as a mere gift of what was accorded to other nations for a full equivalent; that France might obtain, not only in the ports of Louisiana, but in all other ports of the United States, the same advantage as was enjoyed by other vessels on the same condition, namely, reciprocity; and that a more extensive construction of the article would violate that clause of the Constitution which requires all duties, imposts, and excises to be uniform throughout the United States. In the early stages of the American Revolution BeauClaim of Beaumarchais. marchais, who possessed capacity for intrigue and adventure as well as for the drama, undertook to supply the United States with arms and munitions of war, under the fictitious commercial title of Roderique Hortalez & Co. A question subsequently arose as to how far he was entitled to payment for these supplies, it being alleged that he obtained some of them with money which was advanced to him by the French Government as a gift to the United States; and, while a partial settlement was made with him in 1779, a large part of his accounts remained at the close of the Revolution unadjusted. They afterward formed the subject of many executive and legislative reports, besides reappearing at intervals in the records of diplomacy. Instructions of In 1829 the negotiations in regard to the spoliation claims passed into the hands of William C. Rives, then appointed minister to France, a man of strong natural powers and cultivated intelligence, who, by reason of the clearness of his comprehension, the breadth of his views, and the elevation of his motives, as uniformly exhibited during a long career in the public service, is entitled to a high rank among American statesmen. His instructions on the subject of claims were signed by Mr. Van Buren, as Secretary of State, and bore date the 20th of July 1829. They divided the claims into five classes: 1. Claims prior to September 30, 1800, recognized by the fourth and fifth articles of the convention of that date, but either pretermitted by the convention of April 30, 1803, or through various canses not included in the settlement made at Paris by the board of claims, and remaining in force by virtue of the convention of 1800 and the tenth article of that of 1803. These claims were estimated at $1,488,833.99. 2. Claims accrning between September 30, 1800, and April 30, 1803, for debts contracted Am. State Papers, For. Rel. V. 152, 640; H. Ex. Doc. 147, 22 Cong. 2 sess. 2 Wharton's Dip. Cor. Am. Rev. 1. 364-386; Loménie's Beaumarchais and His Times, III. 106, 122, 200, 211, 263, within that period, and referred to in the twelfth article of the convention of 1803. These claims were placed at $134,786.06. 3. Claims accruing between September 30, 1800, and April 30, 1803, from causes other than debts and captures, amounting to $75,704.53. 4. Claims between April 30, 1803, and the year 1805, amounting to $1,065,081.98. 5. (A) Claims subsequent to 1805 growing out of decrees of the French Government and on which no final condemnation was passed, amounting to $6,256,647.69. (B) Claims of the same nature, but finally condemned by the Council of Prizes, the Council of State, or by imperial decisions or orders, amounting to $3,026,231.84. The whole, exclusive of interest, amounted to $12,047,286.09. Mr. Van Buren said that the chief objections to the claims were (1) that they were stale and ought to have been pressed at an earlier period; (2) that similar claims against England and Naples had not been enforced; (3) that the present Government of France was not responsible for the acts of what was called the usurping government; (4) that the claims were very large, that the allowance of them would involve the acknowledgment of a responsibility on the part of France which she would be unable to discharge, and that the United States should accept a compromise, as the European powers had done; (5) that in certain classes of cases since 1805 there was no ground of claim. tions. Mr. Rives, on his arrival in Paris, took up the subMr. Rives's Negotia- ject with much energy. He held numerous conferences with the Prince de Polignac, then president of the council of ministers, and wrote a number of notes. Early in the negotiations the Prince admitted liability in cases where the property had not been finally condemned, and where vessels and cargoes were destroyed at sea. He subsequently went somewhat further, and intimated that he would propose a mixed commission to examine and liquidate all the claims. Mr. Rives then drew up a project of a convention, by the first article of which it was provided that France should make compensation to citizens of the United States "for all losses and damage sustained by reason of illegal or irregular captures, seizures, and sequestrations of their vessels and cargoes under the authority of France, in all cases where the said vessels and cargoes have not been definitively condemned by the Council of Prizes, as also for all losses and damage sustained by the unlawful destruction of their vessels and cargoes at sea, and for all supplies derived from citizens of the United States, or debts otherwise due by virtue of contract." By the second article it was provided that France should also make compensation for losses and damages sustained by condemnations: (1) Where such condemnations were in violation of the convention of September 30, 1800; (2) where the condemnations were not pronounced by a regular prize tribunal; (3) where the proceedings were irregular; (4) where the sentences of condemnation gave a retrospective effect to the decrees under which they were made; (5) where condemnations were made under the Berlin or Milan decrees, after the French Government had pronounced them repealed; (6) where, for other causes, the commission should determine that France was "justly" liable. The draft provided for the appointment of commissioners and arbitrators. Prince de Polignac appointed a committee of three to examine the claims and report to him; but he also strongly pressed the question as to the Louisiana treaty. In order to get rid of this difficulty Mr. Rives suggested that, if the claims were promptly settled and thẹ Louisiana question abandoned, the United States might in a spirit of friendly liberality grant some commercial advantage, such as a reduction of the duties on French wines. This suggestion Mr. Rives made on May 20, 1830, without instructions. Conclusion of a Convention. On the 30th of July 1830 Mr. Rives reported that the prospect of settling the claims had for the present ceased, in consequence of the revolution. At that moment a tricolored flag waved from the palace, and Paris was again tranquil under a provisional government, after passing through three days of commotion and bloodshed. But in the midst of the political changes that were taking place it was impossible again to secure attention to the subject of claims before the middle of September. A new commission, however, was then appointed to examine the subject, the report of the former commission having been adverse to the claims. The new commission did not report till near the end of March 1831. A majority defended the system of imperial decrees, while a minority pronounced it illegal; hence the commission reported against redress where there was a regular application of the system, but recommended it where vessels were burnt at sea, where they were irregularly condemned, or where they were condemned after the decrees were said to have been repealed. The majority recommended the payment of between 10,000,000 and 15,000,000 francs, the minority of about 30,000,000. In April 1831 the government made an offer of 15,000,000 francs. Mr. Rives immediately rejected it. Early in May the offer was raised to 20,000,000 francs, and when this was refused it was raised to 24,000,000, payable by installments in six years. This offer was made as an ultimatum. Mr. Rives mentioned 40,000,000 francs as a sum on which he would compromise, and when this was refused he revived the proposition for a mixed commission. Subsequently he proposed to meet the government halfway between the sums respectively proposed by the minister for foreign affairs and by himself. The minister for foreign affairs, apprehending opposition from the chambers, added 1,000,000 francs to the previous 24,000,000, as an ultimatum. On receiving this offer Mr. Rives brought up the question of interest, and on June 13, 1831, he submitted a draft of a convention in which it was proposed that France should pay 25,000,000 francs in six installments, with interest on each installment from the date of the convention at the rate of 4 per cent, the money to be distributed by the United States. On June 15, Count Sebastiani, the minister for foreign affairs, brought forward the various claims against the United States, including that of the heirs of Beaumarchais, amounting in all to 4,689,241.41 franes; and after much discussion he agreed to accept the sum of 1,500,000 francs in satisfaction of all the French claims. But the question as to the eighth article of the Louisiana treaty yet remained. The French Government insisted on its settlement at the same time as the claims. It was finally arranged in accordance with Mr. Rives's suggestion of May 1830, the French construction of the article being abandoned in consideration of a reduction of the duties on French wines for a period of ten years. The convention, the conclusion of which gave great satistion to the United States, was signed July 4, 1831. The ratifications were exchanged at Washington February 2, 1832.1 H. Ex. Doc. 147, 22 Cong. 2 Sess. |