Proceedings in relation to South Carolina. As to the employment of military force by South Carolina, the most positive assurances are given that nothing of this kind is intended unless in repelling an attack from the Federal Government. By delaying, then, any measures which could indicate such an intention, we avoid all provocation, and furnish no pretext to South Carolina to prepare for such an exigency. [22d CONG. 2d SESS. unlawful combinations, rendering the collection of duties of the present session, earnestly impressed on Congress impracticable," or when their execution is opposed by the the justice and importance of altering and modifying the actual employment of military force by the authority of a laws in question; and your committee have no doubt that State. Yet it is respectfully considered, that the exist- if the recommendations of the Chief Magistrate are carried ence of this combination, and its unlawfulness, as well as out by the passage of the bill reported by the Committee the inadequacy of the means provided by the existing of Ways and Means, it will tend more effectually to allay laws to overcome it, should be first ascertained and esta- the excited feeling of the South, to avert the crisis with blished by the action of our courts. which we are threatened, and to restore harmony to our once happy Union, than any provisions which can be adopted for the removal of custom-houses, clothing the courts with additional powers, or invasion by fleets and armies. But, should Congress still refuse to yield to the complaints and remonstrances of the South; should that feeling of kindness and conciliation so indispensable to the preservation of this great confederacy cease to exert its The committee are fully sensible that the attitude as- influence; and should the laws now in force, together sumed by South Carolina may seriously embarrass the with the provisions contained in the bill herewith reportoperations of this Government; yet they maintain, that if, ed, be evaded, or successfully resisted, by the State of in a controversy between the General Government and South Carolina, then, and not till then, in the opinion of one of the States, a resort to the military and naval power your committee, will it be time for the representatives of of the Union can ever be justified, that resort should only the American people to consider and decide that most be made in the last extremity, and after every other mode delicate and deeply interesting question-the right of the of adjustment has failed. While we can never forget that Federal Government to reduce one of the sovereign memthe constitution was founded on the free and voluntary bers of this Union to obedience to its laws by military consent of the people of the several States, and that it was force; a power, let it be remembered, that was several the result of compromise, we are equally conscious that it times proposed to be given in the formation of the federal can only be preserved by a spirit of conciliation and for- constitution, but never conferred. bearance. What would be the consequences of employ. The committee have made no provision for the removal ing force for the purpose of terminating the present un-of custom-houses, and exaction of cash duties, as suggesthappy controversy, it is impossible to foresee. The inte- ed by the President. Such regulations, especially the rest in the question from which it has originated is not latter, they conceive would be in violation of those clauses limited to a single State, but extends to an entire section of the constitution which declare that "all duties, imposts, of the country; and, among the unhappy results of the and excises shall be uniform throughout the United application of force, there is reason to fear that, from a States," and that "no preference shall be given by any controversy between the General Government and a sin-regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one gle State, it would extend to a conflict between the two great sections of the country, and might terminate in the destruction of the Union itself. State over those of another." To require the duties on goods brought into the ports of one State to be paid in cash, and to allow a credit upon those imported into the But, independent of the danger thus apprehended, and others, would be entirely at variance with that uniformity even admitting that the dreaded calamity referred to might thus required by the constitution, and must give a decided not result from the employment of force as contemplated, advantage to those ports where the credit system prevails, still it would produce, throughout the Southern country, over those where cash payments are enforced. It would a state of feeling towards the Government, and a deep and do more; it would be virtually denying to citizens of one settled hostility against the other sections of the Union, State privileges which are enjoyed by those of another. which every patriot would deplore, and which every The merchant at Charleston must pay the custom-house statesman should earnestly endeavor to prevent. Influ- duties on receiving his goods, while the merchant at Saenced by these considerations, and anxious to avoid, if vannah is allowed a credit of from three to twelve months. possible, even the hazard of civil war or bloodshed, Is this uniformity? Do these merchants enjoy equal priyour committee, in the bill which they herewith submit, vileges? emergency. propose to enlarge the powers and give additional strength This objection is attempted to be obviated by allowing to the process of the United States courts, in the hope a deduction of the interest, when the duties are required that the energies of the Government, acting through its to be paid in cash. But where is the merchant who would judicial tribunals, may prove abundantly competent to the be willing to such an arrangement? Where is the man engaged in trade who is content with a profit of six per Ours is essentially a Government of laws; and their en- cent. on his capital? If there be indeed no difference beforcement must mainly depend on enlightened public tween the present system of credits, and cash payments opinion. So long, then, as these laws are mild and just with a deduction of six per cent., why does not Congress in their character, and equal and impartial in their opera-at once abolish the former, and avoid not only the expense tion, we need no other guaranty for their execution than and trouble and litigation occasioned by the non-payment the virtue and intelligence of the people. When, there- of custom-house bonds, but secure the Government against fore, a law is made by the Government so oppressive and the immense losses annually, almost daily, occurring by destructive to the interests of the people of one of these the failures of importing merchants and their sureties? The States as to determine them to resist it at every hazard, it committee doubt whether the importing merchants would is evidence of the justice of their complaints, which should consent to pay cash duties, if they were offered a deducnot be disregarded; and it is the bounden duty of the tion of double the legal interest. Indeed, there can be Legislature, instead of devising rigorous means to enforce very little doubt that many of the merchants, even of it, to modify the obnoxious law. Such is now the case Charleston, would land their goods at Savannah, and inwith South Carolina; and, in addition to the unanimous cur the expense, inconvenience, and additional hazard of testimony of her own people, and of a very large portion reshipping them, rather than be subjected to the payof the people of the Southern States, as to the injustice ment of the duties in cash. Assuredly the merchants of and oppression of the tariff laws, she is sustained by a the interior would not hesitate as to which of these ports great number of our fellow-citizens throughout the Union. they would, under these circumstances, order their goods. The President, too, in his message at the commencement Is it not perfectly obvious, then, that, by this " "regulation Vol. IX.-C c Mr. Van Buren to Mr. Rives, 20th July, 1829. of revenue," Congress would present strong inducements | Mr. Clay to Mr. Brown, (with enclosure,) 28th May, 1827. for the landing of goods at Savannah in preference to Same to same, 17th May, 1828. Charleston, and thus give a decided advantage to the one port over the other? And can any one believe that, if such a regulation were established and long maintained, it would not as effectually ruin the trade of Charleston as though that port were blockaded, and the entrance of merchant vessels entirely prohibited? But it may be said that these regulations are general; that no particular State is named; that if they apply to South Carolina, it is in consequence of her own act, and that they will be equally applicable to any other State which shall assume the same attitude. The plain answer to this argument is, that the constitution has not given to Congress the power to make such distinctions under such circumstances, or under any circumstances: the provisions of the constitution are broad, general, and unqualified. Admitting, however, for a moment, the power in question to exist, the committee are of opinion that the exercise of it, in the manner proposed, would operate with peculiar injustice. There are, it is well understood, a number of merchants of Charleston, who, notwithstanding the ordinance of South Carolina, will continue to import their goods into that port, give their bonds, and pay them as heretofore. Now, would it not be contrary to the very spirit and genius of our Government, that, on account of the acts of the State authorities, or even of the great body of the State, these individuals should be deprived of privileges secured to the citizens of the other States? These considerations are, with your committee, conclusive against the proposition for the exaction of cash duties; and, as the removal of the custom-houses seems to have been chiefly intended to render that measure the more effectual, the committee consider it entirely unnecessary to provide for such removals. Same to same, (with enclosure,) 20th April, 1830. 2. DESPATCHES FROM MINISTERS IN FRANCE. Mr. Brown to Mr. Clay, dated 8th September, 1827. Same to same, 28th December, 1827. Same to same, 27th February, 1828. Same to same, 12th May, 1828. Same to same, (with enclosure,) 29th July, 1828. Same to same, 12th November, 1828. Mr. Rives to Mr. Van Buren, 7th November, 1829. Same to same, 19th November, 1829, Same to same, (with enclosures,) 17th December, 1829. Same to same, (with accompaniment,) 7th January, 1830. Same to same, ditto, 16th January, 1830. Same to same, 28th January, 1830. Same to same, 16th February, 1830. Same to same, (with accompaniments,) 25th Feb. 1830. Same to same, ditto, 21st March, 1830. Same to same, ditto, 28th March, 1830. Same to same, 6th April, 1830. Same to same, ditto, 18th May, 1830. Same to same, ditto, 20th May, 1830. The committee have not deemed it necessary to enter Same to same, ditto, 29th May, 1830. into many of the important questions presented by the Same to same, ditto, 8th June, 1830. documents which have been referred to them. They Same to same, ditto, 29th June, 1830. have confined themselves more particularly to the sug-Same to same, 17th July, 1830. gestions of the President as to the alterations and modifi- Same to same, 30th July, 1830. cations necessary for more effectually securing the collec- Same to same, ditto, 8th August, 1830. tion of the revenue; and they have considered it due to Same to same, ditto, 18th August, 1830. themselves and to the House, as well as to the high source Same to same, ditto, 8th September, 1830. from which these suggestions proceed, to state the con- Same to same, 18th September, 1830. siderations by which they have been governed in report- Same to same, ditto, 29th September, 1830. ing the bill which is herewith submitted. Same to same, 19th October, 1830. Same to same, ditto, 20th October, 1830. Same to same, 8th November, 1830. Same to same, (with accompaniment,) 18th Dec. 1830. Same to same, (with accompaniments,) 18th Jan. 1831. Same to same, (with accompaniment,) 8th Feb. 1831. Same to same, 28th January, 1831. Same to same, (with accompaniments,) 18th Feb. 1831. Same to same, 10th March, 1831. Same to same, 30th March, 1831. Same to same, 14th April, 1831. Same to same, (with accompaniment,) 28th April, 1831. Same to same, ditto, 7th May, 1831. Same to same, 29th May, 1831. Same to same, (with accompaniments,) 14th June, 1831. Same to Mr. Livingston, ditto, 29th June, 1831. Same to same, 8th July, 1831. Same to same, 28th September, 1831. FRENCH SPOLIATIONS SINCE 1800. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, January 18, 1833. Message from the President of the United States, transmitting sundry papers upon the subject of claims against the French Government for spoliations on American commerce since September, 1800. WASHINGTON, January 17, 1833. To the Speaker of the House of Representatives: In conformity with a resolution of the House of Representatives of the 11th December last, I here with transmit "such portions as have not heretofore been communicated, of the instructions given to our ministers in France on the subject of claims for spoliations since September, 1800, and of the correspondence of said ministers with the French Government, and with the Secretary of State of the United States, on the same subject." ANDREW JACKSON. List of papers transmitted to the House of Representatives, in obedience to their resolution of the 11th December, 1832, on the subject of claims against France for spoliations on American commerce since September, 1800. 1. INSTRUCTIONS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE. Mr. Adams to Mr. Brown, dated 23d December, 1823. Same to same, 14th August, 1824. Extracts from the general instructions of J. Q. Adams, Secretary of State of the United States, to James Brown, Esq. envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of the United States to France, dated at Washington, 23d December, 1823. "The subjects of immediate concern in the relations between the United States and France, which will require your attention, are, Spoliations on American Commerce. "2. The pretension raised by the French Government to special and exclusive privileges in the ports of Louisiana, by virtue of the eighth article of the Louisiana cession convention," &c. &c. &c. * * [22d CONG. 2d SESS. "1. The claims of many citizens of the United States vernment of the United States will readily be included in upon the French Government for indemnity. the negotiation, and to stipulate any suitable provision for the examination, adjustment, and satisfaction of them. But the question relating to the eighth article of the Louisiana treaty is not only of a different character; it cannot be blended with that of indemnity for individual claims, without a sacrifice, on the part of the United States, of a principle of right. The negotiation for indemnity presupposes that wrong has been done; that indemnity ought to be made; and the object of any treaty justly due, and to make provision for the payment of it. By consenting to connect with such a negotiation that relating to the eighth article of the Louisiana convention, the United States would abandon the principle upon which the whole discussion concerning it depends. The situation of the parties to the negotiation would be un"You will, at the same time, explicitly make known equal. The United States, asking reparation for admitted that this Government cannot consent to connect this dis- wrong, are told that France will not discuss it with them cussion with that of the pretension raised by France, on unless they will first renounce their own sense of right the construction given by her to the eighth article of the to admit and discuss with it a claim, the justice of which Louisiana cession treaty. The difference in the nature they have constantly denied. and character of the two interests is such, that they can- The Government of the United States is prepared to not, with propriety, be blended together. The claims renew the discussion with that of France, relating to the are of reparation to individuals for their property taken eighth article of the Louisiana treaty, in any manner from them by manifest and undisputed wrong. The ques- which may be desired, and by which they shall not be tion upon the Louisiana treaty is a question of right upon understood to admit that France has any claim under it the meaning of a contract. It has been fully, deliberate- whatever. ly, and thoroughly investigated; and the Government of A change having taken place in the French Departthe United States are under the entire and solemn con- ment of Foreign Affairs, it is hoped that a new applicaviction that the pretension of France is utterly unfounded. tion in behalf of the claims will be more successful than We are, nevertheless, willing to resume the discussion, if those which have hitherto been urged in vain. It may, desired by France: but to refuse justice to individuals, perhaps, be proper to offer to discuss further the Louiunless the United States will accede to the construction of an article in a treaty, contrary to what they believe to be its real meaning, would be not only incompatible with the principles of equity, but submitting to a species of compulsion derogatory to the honor of the nation." "All these subjects, except the last, [the turning away of the Congress frigate from Cadiz,] have been discussed between the two Governments during the missions of your predecessors; most of them so fully, that a renewal stipulation concerning it, can only be to ascertain what is of the discussion can scarcely be expected to adduce any novelty of argument or of illustration. All the correspondence concerning them will be before you, and you will, immediately after your reception, earnestly call the attention of the French Government to the claims of our citizens for indemnity. The subject which has first claimed the attention of the President, has been the result of your correspondence with the Viscount de Chateaubriand in relation to the claims of numerous citizens of the United States upon the justice of the French Government. I enclose, herewith, a copy of a report of the Committee of Foreign Relations of the House of Representatives upon several petitions addressed to that body at their last session by some of those claimants, and of a resolution of the House adopted thereupon. The President has deliberately considered the purport] of Mr. de Chateaubriand's answer to your note of the 28th of April upon this subject; and he desires that you would renew, with earnestness, the application for indemnity to our citizens for claims notoriously just, and resting upon the same principle with others which have been admitted and adjusted by the Government of France. siana treaty question before entering upon the negotiation for the claims; but you will not fail to press seriously upon the French Government, that, as the United States cannot see, in the result of the discussion hitherto, any just claim of France arising from the article of the treaty, so, in the persevering refusal of France to discuss and adjust the well founded claims of the citizens of the United States to indemnity for wrongs, unless in connexion with one which they are satisfied is unfounded, the United States could ultimately perceive only a determination of France to deny justice to the claimants altogether. From the tenor of the resolution of the House of Representatives, a copy of which is enclosed, you will discern the necessity of obtaining a positive and ultimate answer, in season to be communicated to Congress at an early period of their next session. I am, with great respect, &c. &c. &c. ENCLOSURES. 1. Printed report of the Committee on Foreign Relations of the House of Representatives on the petition of A. Gracie and others, 24th May, 1824. 2. Copy of a resolution of the House of Representatives, 26th May, 1824. Mr. Clay to Mr. Brown. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, JAMES BROWN, Envoy Extraordinary In the note of the Viscount de Chateaubriand to you, of 7th May, it is said that he is authorized to declare a negotiation will be opened with you upon the American claims if this negotiation should also include French SIR: I transmit, herewith, a report from this departclaims, and particularly the arrangements to be concluded ment to the House of Representatives, made at the last concerning the execution of the eighth article of the session of Congress, in pursuance of a resolution of the Louisiana treaty. House, containing a schedule of claims of citizens of the You are authorized, in reply, to declare that any just United States on foreign Governments, arising out of spoclaims which subjects of France may have upon the Go-liations committed on our commerce during the wars of 22d CONG. 2d SESS.] zens. Spoliations on American Commerce. the French revolution. The schedule is as comprehen- exhibition of such a review, you will remind that Governsive as the materials in the possession of the department ment that, as early as the 9th November, 1816, Mr. Galwould admit; but it is not to be taken as, by any means, latin transmitted a note to the Duke de Richelieu, the exhibiting the full amount of the just claims of our citi-French Secretary of State for the Department of Foreign The common casualties incident to human nature Affairs, in which he made a general statement of the have probably prevented the transmission to the depart- claims of our citizens arising under various illegal acts of ment of many claims. Some did not come in until after the French Government, and demanded the indemnity the expiration of the period fixed in the resolution of the due on their account. Having received no answer to that House of Representatives for their being forwarded to the note, on the 26th December following Mr. Gallatin redepartment, and others were received subsequently to quested an interview for the purpose of communicating the presentation of the schedule to the House. The to this Government the result of his application. claims which are excluded ought not to be considered as 16th of January, 1817, the Duke appointed the 20th of affected, in the least degree, by their omission. The de- the same month for the interview, at which Mr. Gallatin sign of the House of Representatives in requiring a state-reports him to have said, in answer to the basis which he ment of the amount of claims upon foreign Governments, had proposed in his note of the 9th November, "that his was to obtain a general and proximate view of their ex- (the Duke's) offer would fall very short of our demand; tent, without any purpose of impairing the validity of that he would not go beyond an indemnity for vessels those which, from whatever cause, should not be for-burnt at sea, and for those, the proceeds of which had warded. been only sequestered and deposited in the Caisse d'Amor On the Although, for the reasons just mentioned, the schedule tissement." He added, "that he would make his propoought to be received as an imperfect exhibit of the total sal in writing, and that this would not be attended with much number and amount of the claims which it was intended delay." On the 13th April, 1817, in another interview to include, the aggregate sum whcih it, in fact, presents, with Mr. Gallatin, he announced "that he had concludis sufficient to enlist the best exertions of the Govern- ed not to give a written answer to the note of the 9th of ment to procure for the claimants the indemnity to which November." The pretext for this alteration in the Duke's they are justly entitled. Whether we regard the enor-determination was stated to be the unexpected amount of mity of the aggressions out of which those claims spring, claims against France which were brought forward by the numerous persons interested in the liquidation of European Powers. He said "that, whilst unable to face them, or the vast amount at issue, the Government of the the engagements which superior force had imposed on United States can never be indifferent to their satisfac- them, it was utterly impossible for his Majesty's Governtory adjustment; and however unpromising appearances ment to contract, voluntarily, new obligations. They may, from time to time, be, it will persevere to the last, were not willing to reject, absolutely and definitively, our until indemnity be obtained. reclamations in toto: they could not, at this time, admit The schedule was referred, by the House of Represen- them. What he had now verbally communicated could tatives, to its Committee on Foreign Affairs, which, on not, for many reasons, become the ground of an official the 23d of February last, made a report, of which a copy answer to my note. He had, therefore, concluded that a is herewith transmitted. The committee conclude their silent postponement of the subject was the least objecreport by observing that the confidence which they enter- tionable course, since, having now made our demand for tain that the measures within the competence of the indemnity, in an official manner, the question would be Executive will eventually prove successful, is measured left entire for discussion at some more favorable time, afby the reliance which is felt in the justice and honor of ter France was, in some degree, disentangled from her foreign Governments. Till those measures shall have present difficulties." Mr. Gallatin states, in a despatch been exhausted, and found inadequate, the time will not under date the 12th of July, 1817, narrating the subhave arrived for legislative interference." It is the ex-stance of a conversation recently had with the same French pectation of the claimants, of Congress, and of the coun-minister, that the Duke said that he wished it to be try, that a renewed appeal shall be made, through the clearly understood that the postponement of our claims Executive, to the justice of France. The committee pro- for spoliations was not a rejection; that a portion of them perly remark in their report, that "justice could not, was considered as founded in justice; that he was not auperhaps, with propriety, be enforced from other Powers thorized to commit his Majesty's Government by any pobefore, nor dispensed with after, it shall have been done sitive promise, but that it was their intention to make an to our citizens by this powerful, prosperous, and mag-arrangement for the discharge of our just demands as soon nanimous State, of whose elevated and liberal policy the as they were extricated from their present embarrasspeople of the United States have had too many proofs toments." In April, 1818, when communicating to the Lefear a final difference of sentiment on this subject." It gislative Chambers of France the engagements which had should be added that France may be properly considered been contracted to foreign Powers, the Duke de Richeas the parent source of all the wrongs inflicted by the con-lieu uses the following terms: "France is liberated, both tinental Powers, during the revolutionary wars, on the as to principal and interest, from all the debts contracted commerce of the United States; and both for that reason, towards the subjects of the other European Powers prior and on account of the greater magnitude of the claims to the 20th November, 1815." This limitation of the upon France, which, according to the schedule, is nearly double the amount of those upon all the other continental Governments together, there is an evident fitness in that nation's taking the lead in equitable reparations, which took the lead in the original aggression. communication to European Powers, to the exclusion of the United States, was made at the instance of Mr. Gallatin, and was intended to preclude all supposition that any decision had been taken unfavorable to the American claims, (see Mr. Gallatin's despatch to the Secretary of It is, therefore, the President's wish that you should State, under date the Sd of April, 1818.) On the 11th again bring the subject of the American claims to the re- of February, 1819, on the occasion of presenting a note, view of the French Government, and demand that satis-under that date, to the Marquis Dessolle, the French Mifaction which has been so long unjustly withheld. In nister of Foreign Affairs, in behalf of the claim of Mr. Paexecuting this duty, it may not be unprofitable that you rish, Mr. Gallatin invites the attention of that minister to should present to its notice a brief review of the treat- the consideration of American claims generally, by referment which has been given, by the present Government, ring to his official notes to which he had received no ansince the final overthrow of Napoleon, to similar demands swer. On the 29th December, 1819, the Council of State when urged by your predecessor and yourself. In the rejected the petition of the proprietors and owners of the Spoliations on American Commerce. [22d CONG. 2d SESS. He regret American ships Telegraph and Dolly, captured by the ties were arranged in a satisfactory manner. French frigates Medusa and Nymphe, and subsequently ted, therefore, extremely, that the discussions of the two burnt at sea. On the 15th March, 1820, Mr. Gallatin ad- subjects had been separated-one being treated in the dressed to Baron Pasquier an official remonstrance against United States, and the other here; and he asked whether that decision, and especially the grounds on which it was it was probable that the result of the negotiation at Washplaced, and he demanded that the subject be laid before ington would be known at Paris before the next session of the King of France, and that the decision be revised and the Chambers, which is to take place in June next." Mr. rescinded. He was afterwards informed by the Baron, Gallatin adds: "I must say that these observations did that the remonstrance was referred to the Minister of Jus- not appear to me to be made with an intention of throwtice, who, to this day, as far as we are informed, has ne- ing new obstacles in the way of an adjustment of our ver reported or decided upon it. claims, but for the purpose of stating the difficulties which the Government would have to encounter in any attempt to effect that object.” On the 9th May, 1820, yielding to the entreaty of Mr. Parish, Mr. Gallatin addressed to Baron Pasquier a note in support of the class of claims known under the designa- On the 3d of May, 1822, Mr. Gallatin addressed a lettion of the Antwerp cases, of which Mr. Parish's was one. ter to Viscount de Montmorency on the subject of the To this note no answer was ever received. On the 31st Antwerp claims, and, on the 18th of the same month, he October, 1821, Mr. Gallatin addressed another note to had a conference with the Viscount on the subject of the Baron Pasquier in behalf of the claim of Richard Paxon, American claims, which turned, principally, on the diffia citizen of the United States, and took that occasion to culties which France would find in effecting an arrangeremind the French minister that his note of the 15th ment with us. The result of a free conversation on what March, 1820, relative to the cases of the Dolly and Tele- was practicable, seemed to be that a definitive agreement graph, was unanswered. To this note no answer was was preferable to a partial payment, and that the choice ever given. On the 10th January, 1822, Mr. Gallatin ad- must, in that respect, be between the two following dressed a note to the Viscount de Montmorency on the modes: either the payment of a stipulated sum, in full subject of the Antwerp claims, in which he discusses the discharge of the demands of the United States for spoliasubject at large. Neither to this note was any written tions, and to be distributed by their Government, or the answer given; but, on the 27th January, 1822, (see Mr. reference of the whole case to a joint commission, which, Gallatin's despatch to the Secretary of State, of the 28th in case of disagreement, would refer the disputed points of that month,) he had a conference with the Viscount on to a sovereign chosen by the two Governments. On the the subject of it, in the course of which, having referred 1st of June, 1822, the Viscount Montmorency returned him to the previous notes of the 9th November, 1816, an answer to the note of Mr. Gallatin of the 3d of May, in and the 22d April, 1817, he again pressed the subject of which he states: "The object of your claims is, without our claims, and stated that, notwithstanding his repeated doubt, interesting to a great number of individuals, and applications during a period of near six years, he had not we have also individual claims to make, which are likebeen able to obtain redress in one single instance, and had wise of great interest to the subjects of the King whom not been even honored with an answer. The Viscount they concern. I would be the first to wish that the GoMontmorency at once answered, "that he had read the vernment could be engaged with them; but you are not papers relative to the Antwerp sequestrations, and that ignorant, sir, that there is, at this moment, at Washinghe was struck with the justice of the claim. He regret-ton, a negotiation which embraces general interests of the ted (he added) that the settlement of this reclamation highest importance to the navigation of France and Ameshould have fallen on the present ministry." Mr. Galla-rica. The King's Council has judged that it was better tin, in a letter addressed to the Secretary of State, under to put off the examination of the individual claims until date the 23d April, 1822, writes: "In several conversa- the negotiation upon the general interests was concluded; tions I had with the Viscount de Montmorency on the sub- and, as soon as that shall take place, I shall hasten, sir, to ject of the Antwerp cases, he always evinced a sense of move, in the King's Council, the examination of the the justice of the claim, and a disposition that indemnity claims which form the subject of your letter of the 3d of should be made, but I have not yet been able to obtain May." all. an official answer." Mr. Gallatin obtained from the Vis- On the 13th of June, Mr. Gallatin, in a note under that count permission to confer on the subject with Mr. de date, addressed to the Viscount Montmorency, in reply, Villele. In that conference, it appeared to Mr. Gallatin protested against this new cause of procrastination. that, although Mr. de Villele was cautious not to commit Meanwhile, the convention of the 24th day of June, himself, "he was already satisfied, from the inspection of 1822, was concluded at Washington, and, on the 17th of the papers in his department, and without having seen August, Mr. Gallatin, in a note to Mr. de Montmorency, my arguments, that the claim was just, and that the ground informs that minister, "that the cause assigned by your assumed by Baron Louis, in his letter to Mr. Parish, was excellency, in your letter of the 1st of June last, for susuntenable." Without disputing the justice of the claim, pending their consideration, being happily removed by Mr. Villele suggested several objections, founded on the the late commercial arrangement, I trust that no further magnitude of the wrongs committed by Bonaparte, and delay will take place, and that, in conformity with the the alleged impossibility that France should repair them tenor of that letter, your excellency will be pleased to "The payments made by France to other Govern- bring that important subject before the King's Council." ments were the result of an agreement, (d'une transac- On the 24th of September, 1822, Mr. Gallatin, in a note tion,) founded on equitable principles, and on an abandon-addressed to the Secretary of State under that date, states: ment, on the part of the foreign Powers, of a considerable "I had yesterday a conference with Mr. Villele on the part of their claims, It appeared to him impossible that subject of our claims. He expressed his wish that a gean application for funds should be made to the Chambers neral arrangement might take place, embracing all the for the purpose of satisfying American claims, unless it subjects of discussion between the two countries: stated was also the result of a transaction of a similar nature.' "those to be, the reclamations of the United States for spo"Even in that case, the engagement to pay any sum, liations on their trade; those of France on account of at this time, for that object, would, for the reasons al- Beaumarchais's claim, and of the vessels captured on the ready stated, and for many others arising from the change coast of Africa, and the question arising under the Louisiof Government, appear extremely hard. The only way ana treaty; and asked whether I was prepared to negoto render it palatable was, that it should be accompanied tiate upon all these points. I answered that I was ready by the grateful information that our commercial difficul- to discuss them all, but that I must object to uniting the |