Obrázky stránek
PDF
ePub

even in different orders, as a distinct one. 'We have here an animal,' says Dr Harlan, speaking of the Rocky Mountain sheep, 'described for the first time in 1816, which has already been classed under four distinct genera, with nearly as many specific appellations.' To mend the matter, Dr Harlan places it under a fifth genus. For the pronghorned antelope, an animal of recent discovery, we have no less than half a dozen different names.

We cannot close this article, without expressing regret and strong disapprobation, at the manner in which are written two long notes in Dr Harlan's book, (pp. 140, 143,) concerning certain differences into which he has unluckily fallen with other naturalists, in describing and naming some species of the genus Arvicola. The contest maintained in these notes is quite below the dignity of science. With whom the fault rests, it is not for us to inquire, but we feel justified in saying, that, when personal jealousy is allowed to have an influence in constructing new genera and species, and when nobis is arrayed against nobis with an air of triumph, no good hope remains for the accuracy of investigations thus pursued, nor for the aid they will lend to the progress of genuine science.

ART. VII.-Report of the Committee of Foreign Relations, of the House of Representatives of the United States, to which were referred the Memorials of certain Merchants, praying Relief for Losses sustained by French Spoliations. 1824.

THE claim of the citizens of the United States for French spoliations, is one of immense amount. Studious to avoid exaggeration, and to reduce our statements even within the severest truth, we rated, in an article in our last number, the whole amount of American claims for foreign spoliations of all kinds, at twenty millions of dollars. Our readers will probably think we greatly erred on the side of moderation, when it is recollected, that Messrs Pinckney, Marshall, and Gerry, in 1799, stated the claim for French spoliations alone

at fifteen millions, and that it has been sometimes computed, that, under the French imperial decrees, over fifty millions of American property were confiscated. If these estimates be thought extravagant, our own will be allowed to be exceedingly modest.

In our last number, we gave a very brief sketch of one portion of the French claims. Those claims may very suitably be divided into two general classes, those arising out of spoliations and other sources, prior to the Louisiana Convention in 1803; and those subsequent to that period, growing out of the outrages exercised upon our commerce, under the renowned imperial decrees. The state and prospects of these two sorts of claims are entirely dissimilar, and they will therefore require to be separately treated.

The few remarks which we made, in the article above mentioned, were confined to the claims of the first class, being such whose obligation is alleged by the claimants, to have devolved upon their own country, in consequence of a voluntary renunciation of them by the government of the United States, on behalf of its citizens, in consideration of certain renunciations made by the government of France, of political claims upon the United States. Having in our former remarks, for the sake of brevity, treated this claim as one, without distinctly severing from each other those portions that were, and those that were not, provided for by the Louisiana Convention, we shall now, for the sake of clearness, consider each class separately; a course of proceeding dictated by the very different ground, on which the two classes have been made to stand, by the measures pursued for their recovery.

We shall now consider the claims, which were excluded from the Louisiana Convention; and briefly relate the history of the manner, in which they arose, were prosecuted, and renounced. By the treaty of commerce and amity, concluded between the United States and France, in 1778, the principle of free ships free goods was solemnly recognised in the twentythird article, and an undisturbed liberty of trading to the enemies of either party, was respectively stipulated to each other by the United States and France. In violation of this article of the treaty, then in force, on the ninth of May 1793, the French National Convention passed

[blocks in formation]

a decree,* declaring enemy's goods on board neutral vessels lawful prize, and directing the public and private armed vessels of France, to bring into port neutral vessels laden with provisions, and bound to an enemy's port.

On the appearance of this decree, Mr G. Morris, then our minister at Paris, remonstrated against it, and so far prevailed, that the National Convention, on the twentythird of the same month, declared, 'that the vessels of the United States are not comprised in the regulations of the decree of the ninth of May.' In communicating this gratifying declaration to Mr Morris, the French minister for foreign affairs, le Brun, observed, 'You will there find a new confirmation of the principles, from which the French people will never depart, with regard to their good friends and allies, the United States of America.' This letter of le Brun's was dated May 26th; and on the 28th of May, the declaration communicated in it was revoked by the National Convention! Such was the levity of that atrocious assemblage. The truth was, the owners of a French privateer, having captured a very valuable American ship, the Laurens, bribed the leaders of the Convention to rescind, on the twentyeighth, the declaration which they had made on the twentythird, and which the minister of foreign affairs had communicated to Mr Morris, on the 26th of May. So little disguise was necessary in these affairs, that the owners of the privateer boasted beforehand, that the declaration of May 23d would be rescinded.

Mr Morris again remonstrated and with success. On the first of July the Convention revoked their last order, and again liberated the commerce of the United States, from the operation of the original decree of May 9th; and this revocation was declared to be made, in conformity with the provisions of the treaty of 1778. M. Desforgues, who had succeeded le Brun, as minister for foreign affairs, in communicating this revocation to Mr Morris, observes, I am very happy in being able to give you this new proof of the paternal sentiments of the French people for their allies, and of their determination to maintain, to the utmost of their power, the treaties subsisting between the two republics.' In twentyseven days this last decree was repealed. We would here

* See the decree at large, in Wait's State Papers, III, 42.

notice an oversight of the Committee, who made the report of April, 1802. They state, that the decree of May 9th, after having been several times repealed and reenacted, was finally repealed on the 27th of July following.' Far otherwise. The decree of May 9th, after having been twice revoked, was finally restored, in its application to American vessels, July 27th, in permanent violation of the twentythird article of the treaty of 1778. The only relaxation made, was the exemption from capture of American vessels, bound with provisions to an enemy's ports.

In the course of the years 1793 and 1794, a new source of injury arose, in a long and distressing embargo at Bordeaux. A list of one hundred and three American vessels detained under this embargo, to the incalculable detriment of the pro•perty embarked in them, was drawn up by Mr Skipwith, on the 20th of November, 1795. As the claims for indemnity, for losses' sustained by this embargo, formed a portion of those provided for by the Louisiana Convention, no further account of them would be here in place.

The number of American vessels seized and sent into France, under the decree of May 9th, 1793, or detained by the embargo, or in other ways, was so great, that Mr Monroe, who succeeded Mr Morris, was led to constitute Mr Skipwith a general agent, for collecting and presenting them to himself and the French government. In the performance of this duty, an amount of injury and outrage inflicted by France, on our commercial interests, was disclosed, which can now scarcely be credited. Mr Skipwith drew up a report, bearing date October, 1794, and addressed to Mr Mon

roe.

[ocr errors]

After observing, that he has not as yet received from the consuls all the documents, necessary for presenting a full view of these injuries and outrages, he adds, from the communication, however, already received from the different ports, and from the information I have collected from the captains present, I can assure you there are near three hundred sail of American vessels, now in the ports of France, all of whom have suffered, or are suffering, more or less delay and difficulties, of which the examples annexed will afford you a general view.'

Mr Skipwith then proceeds to enumerate and classify the modes and forms of the oppressive treatment, imposed upon the Americans, and names first,

'The capture indiscriminately of our vessels at sea, by the vessels of war of the republic.'

A copy of this report, accompanied with documents illustrative of its statements, was laid before the French government, and produced a joint decree of the committees of public safety, finance, commerce, and supplies, dated November 15th, 1794. This decree* revived and declared in force that of July 27th, 1793, above mentioned; it declared, that the principle of 'free ships free goods' should not be recognised in favor of the goods of any enemy, by whom it was not also recognised. It provided for the compensation of losses sustained by neutral vessels, in consequence of the embargo at Bordeaux, and for the payment of supplies furnished by Americans to St Domingo. The satisfaction yielded under these two last heads was partial, inadequate, and attended with great delay, while the provisions of the decree perpetuated some of the most serious violations of the treaty of 1778. This being the subject of continued and persevering complaints, made on behalf of our merchants, on the 4th of January, 1795, the committee of public safety repealed those parts of the decree of November preceding, which violated the treaty of alliance. The leaders in France, at this time, appear to have felt a wish to conciliate America, and such were the advices from our minister there, that General Washington, in his message to Congress, February 28th, 1795,† makes the following statement. 'Our minister near the French republic has urged compensation for the injuries, which our commerce has sustained from captures by French cruisers, from the nonfulfilment of the contracts of the agents of that republic with our citizens, and for the embargo at Bordeaux. He has also pressed an allowance for the money voted by Congress, for relieving the inhabitants of St Domingo. It affords me the highest pleasure to inform Congress, that perfect harmony reigns between the two republics; and that those claims are in a train of being discussed with candor, and of being amicably adjusted.'

In fact, as we have observed, the republic, at this time, seems to have been disposed to act with justice. Mr Skip

* It may be found in State Papers, III, 53.

+ Wait's State Papers, X, 402.

« PředchozíPokračovat »