No. 447.

Mr. Livingston to the Secretary of State of the United States, dated PARIS, 13th January, 1802.

[EXTRACT.]

"The reluctance we have shewn to a renewal of the treaty of 1778 has created many suspicions. Among other absurd ones, they believe seriously that we have an eye to the conquest of their Islands. This business of Louisiana also originated in that; and they say expressly that they could have had no pretence, so far as related to the Floridas, to make this exchange, had the treaty been renewed, since, by the 6th article, they were expressly prohibited from touching the Floridas. I own I have always considered this article and the guarantee of our Independence, as more important to us than the guarantee of the Islands was to France; and the sacrifices we have made of an immense claim to get rid of it as a dead loss."

No. 448.

Mr. Livingston to the Minister of Exterior Relations for the French Republic, dated, 1st Pluviose, 1802, (20th January.)

SIR: It is not without pain that I find myself compelled, so shortly after my arrival, to complain to the French Government of direct and manifest violations of that Convention which was considered in the United States as the basis of peace, and the sacred pledge of harmonny and friendship between the two Republics.

Whatever sacrifices the United States may have made to obtain it, they made them with pleasure, because they felt with pain the state of alienation in which they had been placed, with their earliest ally; and I was, accordingly, charged by the President to inform the first Consul of their strict adherence to every article it contained. And this assurance had, I flatter myself, been preceded, on the part of the Government of the United States, by every act of good faith and friendship that the Convention enjoined. But, sir, I do sufficient justice to the integrity of the French Government to be persuaded that the infractions of the Convention, which make the subject of this note, will not be seen by them with indifference; and that the misconstruction of it by the Council of Prizes, and the injuries their decisions have done, (under mistaken impressions.) will be speedily remedied by your friendly representation and the interposition of the Government. I believe, sir, it will not be disputed that it was the intention of the Convention, that, 1st, all vessels taken after its signature-2d, all vessels previously taken, where no judicial proceedings had been

had-3d, all vessels on which no definitive sentence had been given before that day; or which, by the laws of France, were removable from any other tribunal to the council of prizes; are to be determined by the 4th article; (contraband designed for an enemy excepted,) and that the only question relative to the cases of vessels or property under these circumstances, is-had they the proofs and papers required by the 4th article of the Convention?

With respect to property under these circumstances, the American Government had received authorized assurances from Mr. Pichon, that its return would be immediately recommended on the ratification of the Convention, by an arrete of the Consuls, without the intervention of the Council of Prizes. How advantageous such an arrêt would be to both nations, is obvious, since the delay occasioned by going through all the forms of a trial in the Council of Prizes, which sits but two days in a decade, is extremely injurious to the merchant, whose capital is so long diverted from its intended object, and who is at daily expense in the maintenance of his seamen. Nor, on the other hand, is it uninteresting to the French nation; since an immediate acquittal would generally enable the captured to obtain his damages from the captors. But when, by delay, the consequent ruin of the voyage, and the destruction or forced sale of perishable articles, the damages are greatly enhanced, they will frequently be unattainable from the captors; and, in that case, the French Government will become liable for them.

Under similar impressions the Government of the United States have acted; and, immediately, without the intervention of courts or councils, discharged such ships as fell within the purview of the convention.

I cannot, then, but flatter myself, Sir, that all vessels captured after S0th of September, 1800, will be discharged by an arrêt of the consuls, without trial; and that the parties shall be left to pursue their remedy for damages occasioned by the capture and delay before the council, without any detention of the ships; or where the ship has been sold, and the money deposited to await the event of a trial, that it be immediately restored, in like manner as the vessel would have been; the cause only being retained so far as may relate to additional damages; and that, for the furtherance of this latter business, the council may be directed to devote a certain portion of every decade to this particular object. If the Government should not think proper to extend their decree to all the cases that may fall under the 4th article, but confine it merely to cases of captures subsequent to the 30th of September, 1800, I then presume to hope, Sir, that the Council of Prizes will be directed to confine themselves simply to the inquiries pointed out by the convention, viz: had the ship the papers required by the 4th article? It will appear, Sir, by an investigation of the papers annexed, that they have allowed themselves a much greater latitude, and have even condemned, on pretences and proofs that would, I venture to say, have been insufficient in any maritime court, had no convention existed(as for instance) that a gun had been fired, though without the orders

of the captain, after the vessel struck her colors. If, Sir, the Council of Prizes are not confined, so far as their jurisdiction relates to the vessels of the United States, to the strict letter of convention, how is the situation of the captured bettered by it?

Viewing the Council of Prizes as a political board, and their proceedings divested of those solemnities which the French nation have deemed necessary, where a right to property depends upon a point of law, I venture to hope that, when the matter before them is a mere question of law-as. whether an appeal has been properly entered-whether the causes for not entering it in time are justified by the circumstances? and many others, of a similar nature; it may be determined by the Tribunal of Cassation, on a reference to it, and a full hearing of the parties before that court. These questions being extremely interesting on account of the many irregularities in the French Colonial courts, and the doubts that must in many cases arise on the question whether a case had, or had not, been definitively settled. previous to the convention, in the meantime, Sir, I request that the judgment and condemnation made by the Council of Prizes, 1st, where the capture was made after the 30th September, 1800-2nd, where it was grounded upon any other circumstance than the want of the papers required by the 4th article of the convention-may be arrested and sent back to be determined agreeably to the stipulations of the convention, without regard to any other circumstance-and sd, where the condemnations depended upon a mere question of law, that they may be suspended until they can be referred to,.and decided by the Tribunal of Cassation. I purposely forbear, Sir, entering into the particular causes of complaint, since you will find them fully justified by the annexed cases, which will be verified by a reference to the records of the Council of Prizes, if any doubts should be entertained on the subject.

Confiding fully in the good faith of the Government, which has been proved not only by the facility with which the corps legislatif have given their sanction to the convention, by the liberal manner in which it was brought under their notice by the orators of Government, I forbear to press the various circumstances which at this interesting moment more particularly enforce the propriety of my demands.

I embrace this occasion, Sir, to renew to you my sentiments of esteem, and the high consideration with which I have the honor to be, &c. &c. ROBERT R. LIVINGSTON.

No. 449.

Mr. Livingston to the Secretary of State of the United States, dated PARIS, 26th January, 1802.

[EXTRACT.]

"I am almost hopeless as to our claims here. One expedient has struck me, which may possibly, but by no means certainly, succeed.

It is, to propose that the United States open a loan here to a certain amount, say 6 000,000 dollars, which will about cover the liquidated debt; that, when a debt is liquidated, the creditor may subscribe to this loan, that shall open at 44 per cent. At the same time, France shall open a loan at 5 per cent., to which the United States shall subscribe an amount equal to the debt she has assumed; covenanting, at the same time, that while the interest of this debt shall be punctually paid, she will not dispose of any part of it, except at certain long periods. and by instalments. The advantage that France will derive from this is, that her apprehensions about the fall of her present stock (by bringing more paper into the market) will be done away. The advantage to the United States will be, first, the saving from absolute ruin a number of their best disposed citizens; 2d, the putting an active capital into the hands of their merchants, which will be always more important than the interest they pay; 3d, the popularity it will give the Government; 4th, the advantage of paying at home, and drawing an interest from a foreign country, and the management of the exchange.

"Whether this can be effected, I cannot say, but I wish to have the power to attempt it. Perhaps, by making it the interest of some, I may bring about what a sense of justice could never do. I must pray you, sir, to be particularly careful that this proposition be not mentioned for, whether it succeeds or not, it will no sooner be known than it will become an object of private speculation.”

No. 450.

Mr. Livingston to the Minister of Exterior Relations of the French Republic, dated

PARIS, 1 Ventose, An 10, (20th February, 1802.)

[EXTRACT.]

"The policy of the former Government of France led it to avoid all ground of controversy with the United States, not only by declining to possess any territory in their neighborhood, but by stipulating never to hold any. The undersigned does not, by this reference to the 6th article of the treaty of 1778, mean to reclaim any rights under it, since, by the convention of Paris, 30th September, 1800, it is understood to be revoked; but merely to lead the French Government to reflect how far regard to the same policy might render it conducive to the mutual interest of both nations to cover, by a natural barrier, their possessions in America, as France has invariably sought to do in Europe."

No. 451.

Mr. Livingston to the Minister of Exterior Relations of the French Republic, dated

[PARIS,] 24th February, 1802.

The undersigned Minister Plenipotentiary of the United States, has the honor to remind the Minister of France for Exterior Relations, that his several notes heretofore transmitted him, remain unnoticed. Two of them are so important to the interest of the United States, that he can no longer, in duty to them, forbear to request for them the attention of the Minister of Exterior Relations. The first, on the subject of the claims of American citizens, important in itself, is rendered more so by the actual position of the French colonies in America. The destruction and waste of property in the Islands, the commencement of a new establishment in Louisiana, and the large fleets and armies at present in the West Indies, will probably require considerable supplies from the United States, while the return of peace has created a new confidence in France, strengthened, as the undersigned is informed, by reports now circulating there (probably by designing persons) of liberal measures that are said to be taken by the French Government for the faithful and immediate discharge of all their debts. It is the duty of the undersigned to transmit to his Government, as early a statement of the measures about to be adopted, on this subject, as possible, with a view either to afford it the satisfaction that it will always feel in contributing to the interests of France, where it can be done without violating the duty it owes to itself, or of putting a stop to credits that must be ruinous to its citizens, already suffering under heavy losses sustained by the detention of a considerable capital in the hands of the French Government. As this subject will admit of no delay, the undersigned will think it his duty to state in his first despatches the measures he has taken to obtain payment, and the little ground that has been given him to hope for any thing decisive on the part of the French Government, unless the Minister for Exterior ReÎations shall enable him to afford them information more conformable to their wishes, and the expectations they have formed of the justice and resources of France. The second note alluded to, is on the subject of the conduct of the Council of Prizes. On this, also, the Minister of Exterior Relations has omitted to afford him any decisive answer. In the mean time, the undersigned is receiving daily complaints of their entire disregard for the provisions of the treaty. When a vessel is even acquitted, it is done in such a manner as to amount to a total loss to the owner. Instead of awarding damages and costs, or even restoring the capture in the situation that it was when taken, they direct it to be restored in the state it now is, and charge the whole costs of detention, storage, &c. to the captured. The bills for these charges have alone amounted, on the cargo of a small brig, to 195,000 francs. And this, together with property plundered from the ship and stores, have, in general, exceeded the price at which the cargo would sell.