Baltimore, who was taken on board the French cruiser that had captured his ship, and tortured for more than three hours,' to induce him to make such declarations, concerning his ship and cargo, as would procure their condemnation. 'Captain Martin's thumbs,' adds Mr King, which I examined, bear the marks of the screws, and the scars will go with him to his grave.'

In the decrees, of which we have now enumerated the chief, and in captures, seizures, and spoliations, committed by the French cruisers on American vessels indiscriminately, without the authority even of these decrees, such as it was, originate the claims we are now considering. They formed, of course, a standing subject of reclamation and of complaint, on the part of our successive Ministers to France, Mr Morris, and Mr Monroe; and they were to have been pressed by General Pinckney, had he been received by that government as Mr Monroe's successor. On the failure of his separate embassy, a commission of three envoys, Messrs Pinckney, Marshall, and Gerry, was sent to France; but, as is well known, this commission was not received by the Directory. The subject of the claims of our citizens on France, of every description, was particularly treated in their instructions; and after an enumeration of these claims, in their general nature and quality, it is observed in the instructions as follows; 'Although the reparation for losses sustained by citizens of the United States, in consequence of irregular or illegal captures or condemnations, or forcible seizures or detentions, is of very high importance, and is to be pressed with the greatest earnestness, yet it is not to be insisted upon as an indispensable condition of the proposed treaty. You are not, however, to renounce these claims of our citizens, nor to stipulate that they be assumed by the United States, as a loan to the French Government.' This last clause referred to a proposal, already made by France to our government, and repeated in one of the unofficial communications of the emissaries of Talleyrand with our envoys, that the United States should assume this debt as a loan to France. *

During their residence in France, though not received by the Directory in an official character, our envoys addressed

* State Papers, IV. 12.

a most able memorial to the French minister, in which they divide the American claims into two classes. The first consists of such, as are uncontroverted by the French Government, and are substantially those provided for by the Louisiana Convention. After enumerating the varieties of claims in this class, our envoys add, that they pass to complaints still more important for their amount, more interesting for their nature, and more serious in their consequences,' viz. the spoliations under the various decrees of the French Government, issued in violation of the treaty of 1778, and of the law of nations. It is worthy of particular notice that, under the head of claims uncontroverted by France, are those for captures under the decree of May 9, 1793.

In a conversation between Talleyrand and our envoys, detailed in the journal of the latter,* the French minister endeavored to induce our envoys to assume the claims of our citizens, as a loan to France, remarking that they had claims on the French Government for property taken from American citizens. Some of those claims are probably just.' In the negotiation of Talleyrand with Mr Gerry, after the departure of the other ministers, a negotiation which may be called official, the French minister thus expressed himself. With respect to the claims of American citizens on the French republic, if the latter should not be able to pay them when adjusted, and the United States would assume and pay them, France would reimburse the amount thereof;'† and, in this proposal, Mr Gerry expresses the opinion, that Talleyrand was sincere.

The manner in which the embassy of the three envoys terminated, and the appointment of another, the following year, are too familiar to be dwelt upon. The instructions to the second commission, consisting of Messrs Murray, Ellsworth, and Davie, have not been made public. They form a part of the papers, whose communication was asked by the Senate and House, at the close of the first Session of the eighteenth Congress, and then delayed on account of their voluminousAs the state of things, with respect to the claims, was not at all changed, since the instructions of Messrs Pinckney, Marshall, and Gerry were drawn up, it is highly probable

ness.

* State Papers, IV. 89. VOL. XXII.-No. 50.

19

+ State Papers, IV. 160.

that the same instructions were given to Messrs Murray, Davie, and Ellsworth; that they were directed to press the claim as of high importance, by no means to renounce it, but not to make it a sine qua non condition of the treaty to be negotiated.

The new American Commission found a new government in France. The result of the negotiations of our envoys was the Convention of 1800. The second article of that Convention is in the following terms; 'The Ministers Plenipotentiary of the two parties, not being able to agree, at present, respecting the treaty of alliance of 1778, and the treaty of amity and commerce, of the same date, and the Convention of November, 1788, nor upon the indemnities mutually due or claimed; the parties will negotiate 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.'

The fifth article provides for a liquidation of debts between the two countries, as if no misunderstanding had happened; but this provision was not to extend to indemnities claimed for captures and confiscations.

The Convention was sent to the United States, and ratified in the Senate, with the exception of the second article, which provided for further negotiation on the indemnities mutually claimed or due.

In this form the Convention was returned to France, and Mr Murray was immediately interrogated by the French Government, as to the motives of the American senate in expunging the second article. As Mr Murray's correspondence has not been officially communicated, his statements to the French Government, on this subject, are not certainly known. He is understood, however, to have accounted for the expunging of the second article, from the wish of the Senate to preclude any future standing subject of contention between the two governments, such as a reserved negotiation of this kind would be. The French Government are supposed to have stated, that a simple omission of the article, unaccompanied by a mutual renunciation, would operate to their prejudice. The claims of France on America rested on the provisions of the treaty of 1778, and the Consular Convention of 1788. These treaties ceasing to exist, France

would lose all claim on America; whereas the American claims having a basis, not only in the treaty, but in the law of nations, would still lie against France. To avoid this disadvantageous result, the French Government is understood to have proposed this alternative; either to omit the second article, accompanying the omission with a mutual renunciation, or to abandon the Convention entirely, and to leave the treaty of 1778 in force. Our minister accepted the former part of the alternative, and the treaty was ratified by Bonaparte, as First Consul, omitting the second article, with a note attached, declaring that this omission was considered by the parties, as a mutual renunciation of their claims. The Convention came back to the United States with this conditional ratification, and on the 19th of December, 1801, the Senate resolved, that they considered the same Convention as fully ratified.'

With respect to the claims of France on America, which are brought forward as an offset to the claims of America on France, a full idea of them cannot be obtained, without perusing, in the State Papers, the correspondence between the several Ministers of the French Republic in America, with our government here; the Reports made by the American Secretary of State upon this point; the correspondence of the American Secretary with General Pinckney, and the memoir addressed by Messrs Pinckney, Marshall, and Gerry to Talleyrand. The two gravest matters in controversy, however, can be specified in a word, the guaranty of the French possessions in the West Indies, and of aid to be rendered France by America in defensive wars; stipulated by the treaty of 1778, and the privileges claimed by France for her consuls, under the Consular Convention of 1788. By the guaranty, America was unquestionably bound to France, to an extent indefinite and uncertain, but calculated to be very onerous. The extent of this obligation may be partly estimated, from that clause in the instructions of our government to Messrs Pinckney, Marshall, and Gerry, which authorised them to propose to the French Government, in time of war, an annual subsidy of two hundred thousand dollars, in lieu of a specific fulfilment of the guaranty. Considering this as the voluntary offer of our government, and also bearing in mind the odious nature of a subsidy in the estimation

of a people like the American, it is easy to infer that this treaty of 1778, was regarded as a very heavy burden by our statesmen. The editor of the edition of the Laws of the United States, whose exact acquaintance with our political history is apparent throughout the work, in a note subjoined to the Convention of 1803, after sketching the history of our relations with France, adds, by that Convention, (of 1801,) among other things, the United States were exonerated from the weighty responsibility imposed, by the treaty of alliance of 1779, of a guarantee of the French possessions in America.'

Such, therefore, was the mutual renunciation, on the part of the United States and France. The latter renounced her claim upon the United States, for the fulfilment of the stipulations of the treaty of alliance, and for indemnity for injuries alleged to be sustained by France, from the failure of the United States of America to fulfil those stipulations, and also from the alleged inexecution of the Consular Convention of 1788. The United States renounced the claims of her citizens, for spoliations and injuries, under various decrees of the French Government, issued in violation of the treaty of 1778, and of the law of nations.

We shall now pursue briefly the history of the manner in which the citizens of the United States, whose claims were renounced by their own government, in consideration of a great national and political object, have sought relief and indemnity.

The year after this Convention was ratified, viz. in 1802, sundry citizens and claimants, whose rights were affected by it, applied to Congress for relief. Their memorials were referred to a committee, who made an elaborate report, consisting chiefly of an enumeration of the violent and illegal decrees of the French; of the measures adopted by our government to procure or enforce redress; and of the negotiation of the Convention of 1800. After going through this historical detail, the report of the committee closes with the following paragraph,

'It appears, that the exclusion of the second article of the Convention was considered as a renunciation of the indemnities, claimed by the citizens of the United States of America, for spoliations and depredations upon their commerce, so far as the government might