and finally ratified and confirmed on the 22d day of February 1822, which evidences shall be returned to the Department of State when the commission shall expire." The obvious purpose of this resolution was to place in the hands of the commission all the evidence in regard to claims which, after having been presented to the commission under the treaty of 1819 with Spain as claims against that country, should be presented to the commissioners under the convention with France as claims against the French Government. 2 Work of the Commission. The labors of the commission proved to be very onerous, and its existence was twice prolonged, first for a year and then till the 1st of January 1836.+ As the board adjourned December 31, 1835, the whole period of its duration was about three years and five months. Accompanying a report made by the commissioners on June 7, 1834, in response to a resolution of the Senate, there is a list of all the claims that had been presented to the board divided into three classes-those that had been recognized as prima facie falling within the treaty, those that had been suspended, and those that had been rejected. The total amount of the claims presented, principal and interest, was $51,834,170.15. Of those recognized as falling within the treaty, the principal amounted to $17,065,917.36, and the interest to $24,574,920.99; in all, $41,640,838.35. At the close of the sessions of the commission it appeared that the whole number of claims presented was 3,148, of which 1,567 were allowed and 1,581 disallowed. The total amount awarded was $9,352,193.47.7 Delay in Execution of The first of the six annual installments of the sum due from France under the convention became payable on the 2d of February 1833, a year after the exchange of the ratifications. When the commission adjourned nothing had as yet been paid, but the controversy between the two governments in regard to the execution of the convention by France was nearing its close. This controversy grew out of opposition to the convention in the French Chamber of Deputies.. When the first installment fell due, the United States, standing upon the engagements of the convention, negotiated a draft through the Bank of the United States on the French minister of finance. At that time the French Government had not ventured to ask for an appropriation, and the draft was allowed to go to protest. The Duc de Broglie, then minister for foreign affairs, complained of this action on the part of the United States. He urged that under the French constitutional system the financial clauses of the convention could not be 14 Stats. at L. 668. Am. State Papers, For. Rel. VI. 185. 3 Act of June 19, 1834, 4 Stats. at L. 679. Act of March 3, 1835, 4 Stats. at L. 778. S. Ex. Doc. 417, 23 Cong. 1 sess. 6S. Ex. Doc. 204, 24 Cong. 1 sess. 'H. Ex. Doc. 117, 24 Cong. 1 sess. The draft was in the form of a bill drawn by the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States on the minister of state and finance of France, in favor of Samuel Jaudon, cashier of the Bank of the United States, or order. (United States v. Bank of the United States, 5 Howard, carried into effect in that country any more than in the United States without the cooperation of the legislative branch of the government, but that the French Government had promised to do all that it could to effect the execution of the convention. The United States took the ground that the convention, having been constitutionally concluded and ratified, was obligatory on every department of the contracting governments.' In April 1833 the French Government presented to the Chamber of Deputies a bill to carry the convention into effect, but it was not deemed prudent then to press the measure to a vote, and the same course was taken at the next session. In January 1834 the bill was for the third time submitted to the Chamber of Deputies. On the 10th of March the committee to whom it was referred recommended its adoption, but in the following April, when it was pressed to a vote, it was rejected by a vote of 176 to 168. At a brief and merely formal meeting of the chambers in July the bill was not renewed, but the government promised to submit it again at the session beginning in December.' In the mean time Edward Livingston arrived at Paris as minister of the United States. When he presented his letter of credence to the King, the latter warmly expressed his good feeling toward the United States, and declared that the convention would be faithfully performed, though circumstances had prevented its immediate execution. He stated, not only as king, but as an individual whose promise would be fulfilled, that the necessary laws would be passed at the next meeting of the chambers. Livingston duly reported these assurances to his government, but stated that he did not hope for any decisive action before the middle of January. One motive for the delay was, he said, an expectation that the President's message might arrive before the discussion, and that it might contain something to show "a strong national feeling on the subject." This was "not mere conjecture;" he knew it to be a fact. As he had previously intimated, on the tone of the President's message would largely depend not only the payment of the claims, but "the national reputation for energy."3 Acting upon this advice, it is probable that President Jackson's RecommenJackзon exceeded the expectations of those who hoped dation of Reprisals. for an exhibition of "energy." In his message to Congress he declared that the executive branch of the government had exhausted all the authority which it possessed in the matter, and which there was any reason to believe could be beneficially employed; and that, while he was confident that the idea of acquiescing in the refusal to execute the convention would not for a moment be entertained by any branch of the government, "any further negotiation" on the subject was equally out of the question." He therefore recommended that he be invested with power to make reprisals, in case France should continue to withhold payment of the installments that were due. This recommendation was duly referred both in the Action of the Senate. Senate and in the House of Representatives to the appropriate committees. The first action upon it was taken in the Senate, where, on January 6, 1835, a report was made by Mr. Clay from the Committee on Foreign Relations. The report was very 1 H. Ex. Doc. 40, 23 Cong. 2 sess. 2 H. Ex. Doc. 2, 23 Cong. 2 sess. 3 H. Ex. Doc. 136, 23 Cong. 2 sess. temperate and very able. It stated that the committee entirely concurred with the President as to the justice of the claims. Nearly two years had elapsed since the first installment of the indemnity became due. The President thought that the time had arrived to make reprisals, which would not, in his opinion, give France any just cause for war; but he also left to Congress the consideration of awaiting further action of the French chambers. The committee had reviewed the whole correspondence. The Government of France had endeavored to secure the execution of the treaty. The delays in doing so were satisfactorily accounted for. When the bill to carry the convention into effect was rejected, the minister of foreign affairs immediately resigned his place in consequence of the vote of the chamber. During the debate the principle of indemnity seemed to have been generally admitted, but opinions differed as to the amount. Some of the members appeared to think that France was a prey to the rapacity of foreign powers; that the United States owed her a debt of gratitude and ought at least to have moderated their demands; that the decrees of France were no more than a just retaliation for the edicts of Great Britain; that the claims were in the hands of a few speculators, and that on a fresh negotiation the amount would be materially reduced; and that as to 8,000,000 of the 25,000,000 francs, the United States was seeking a double satisfaction, first from Spain under the Florida treaty, and then from France under the present convention; but the controlling motive of the majority appeared to be the impression that the amount was too large. The French Government believed, said Mr. Clay, that the United States would await the renewal of its efforts to obtain an appropriation. It was manifest that the President's recommendation of the contingent measure of reprisals was due to the failure of pledges which he understood had been given; but ought the committee to advise the adoption of such a measure because the King did not call the legislative bodies together some sixty or ninety days earlier than the period of their accustomed meeting? Such a call might not have been attended with beneficent results. The committee, said Mr. Clay, recommended adherence to negotiation. The President thought reprisals a pacific measure. Nevertheless, while reprisals did not of themselves produce a state of public war, they not infrequently were the immediate precursors of it. It was inconceivable that a nation like France would submit without retaliation, and this would inevitably terminate in war. Reprisals, the report declared, so far partook of the character of war that they were an appeal from reason to force. In conclusion, the committee recommended the adoption of a resolution to the effect that it was inexpedient at that time to pass any law vesting in the President authority to make reprisals on French property in the contingency of provision not being made for paying the indemnity during the pending session of the French chambers. The vote in the Senate on this recommendation was taken on the 14th of January. The debate was participated in by leading members of that body, and the resolution was amended so as to read: "It is inexpedient at present to adopt any legislative measures in regard to the state of affairs between the United States and France." In this form the resolution was unanimously adopted.1 'Congressional Debates, XI. Part 1, pp. 103, 200. In the House of Representatives action was postAction of the House. poned until the end of February. In a message of the 25th of that month the President stated that he had instructed Livingston to quit France with his legation and return to the United States if an appropriation for the fulfillment of the convention should be refused by the chambers. On the following day a report on the relations with France was made by Cambreleng, from the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and a minority report, signed by Edward Everett, R. P. Letcher, and R. Coulter, was also presented. On the 28th of February, after a debate which extended far into the night, the House adopted a resolution to the effect that the execution of the convention should be insisted on, and that preparation ought to be made for any emergency growing out of the state of the relations between the two countries.3 Action in France. In France, the President's message of December 1834 was received as a measure of hostility, and though Mr. Livingston expressed regret that it should be so interpreted, the French minister at Washington was recalled, Livingston was offered his passports, and the Chamber of Deputies was informed that all diplomatic intercourse with the United States had been suspended. A bill was then introduced in the Chamber of Deputies to carry the convention into effect, by which it was provided that the money should not be paid till it was ascertained that the United States had done nothing to injure the interests of France. This proviso obviously referred to any possible action by Congress on the President's recommendation of reprisals. When, however, on March 28, 1835, the bill was put upon its passage, though it was known that Congress had not adopted that recommendation, an amendment was carried to the effect that no money should be paid till satisfactory explanations should be received of the President's message. Such explanations the President declined to give. He had already caused it to be officially made known to the French Government that he approved Livingston's voluntary disavowal of any intention on the part of the United States to intimidate; and he refused to go further. While he was ready to dissipate any inferences injurious to the honor of France, he was unwilling to do it in such a manner as to seem to admit an obligation to apologize for or explain an official communication to Congress. An agent was appointed by the United States to receive the money, but he was informed by the French Government that it could not be paid because the "formalities" required by the act of the chambers had not been arranged. Message of December 7, 1835. When the President on December 7, 1835, sent his annual message to Congress, the state of affairs apparently remained unchanged. He devoted a long passage to a review of the controversy, and, while maintaining his position, declared the conception that he had intended "to menace or insult the Government of France was as unfounded as the attempt to extort from 1 H. Ex. Doc. 174, 23 Cong. 2 sess. 2 Congressional Debates, XI. Part 2, p. 1515, and App. p. 177; H. Rep. 133, 23 Cong. 2 sess. 3 Congressional Debates, XI. Part 2, pp. 1531-1634. the fears of that nation what her sense of justice might deny would be vain and ridiculous." At the same time he stated that the chargé d'affaires of the United States at Paris, who remained after Livingston's withdrawal, had been instructed to ask for the final determination of the French Government, and in the event of their continued refusal to pay the installments due, to return to the United States.' On the 8th of January 1836 President Jackson sent Diplomatic Rupture. a special message to Congress, by which it appeared that France was willing to pay the money if the United States would officially and in writing express its regret for the misunderstanding which had arisen, and disclaim any intention to question the good faith of the French Government, or to take a menacing attitude toward France; that the French Government had been officially informed that these terms could not be complied with, and that Mr. Barton, the chargé d'affaires of the United States, had left Paris. Diplomatic relations between the two countries were completely broken off. Under the circumstances the President suggested that, as the money had been appropriated, but was withheld on grounds which it was not believed would be permanently maintained, it would suffice, till such a determination should have become evident, to prohibit the introduction of French products and the entrance of French vessels into the ports of the United States. British Mediation. All occasion for the consideration of such measures soon passed away. As the French Government had originally taken offense at a passage in the President's message, it received the expressions in his message of December 7, 1835, in regard to his supposed intention to menace France, as a satisfactory expla nation. This fact appears by correspondence communicated to Congress on February 22, 1836, in regard to the mediation of Great Britain. On the 27th of the preceding month, Mr. Bankhead, the British chargé d'affaires at Washington, informed the United States that he was instructed to express the hope that, if the parties would agree to refer to the British Government the settlement of the point at issue between them and to abide by its opinion on the subject, means might be found of satisfying the honor of each. President Jackson accepted the mediation, with a reservation as to the requirement of expressions of regret and explanations, a condition which, he said, could never be complied with. On the 15th of February Mr. Bankhead stated that the French Government had declared that the frank and honorable manner in which the President had in his recent message expressed himself with regard to the points of difference between the two governments had removed the difficulties on the score of national honor, and that the French Government was ready to pay the installments due whenever they should be claimed by the United States. The French Government accepted the mediation, but by this declaration, which was made to the British Government as a channel of communication, the necessity of a formal mediation was dispensed with. 1 H. Ex. Doc. 2, 24 Cong. 1 sess. 2S. Ex. Doc. 62, 24 Cong. sess.; S. Ex. Doc. 63, 24 Cong. 1 sess. |