make this exchange, had the Treaty been renewed, since by the VIth 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. The Hon. James Madison.

ROBERT LIVINGSTON.

No. 56.-Mr. Livingston to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. (Extract.)

Paris, 17th April, 1802. I AM Sorry, Sir, that we should still continue to think differently on the subject of the Indemnities. The Vth Article appears to me to go much farther than your construction of it is willing to admit. It expressly stipulates that all Debts due by either Government to the Individuals of the other shall be paid. But as this would also have included the Indemnities for Captures and Condemnations previously made, and as it was the intention of the Contracting Parties, by the IInd Article, to exclude this payment, as depending on a future Negotiation, it was necessary to except from this promise of payment all that made the subject of the IInd Article. The exception, therefore, must be considered as a complete explanation of the extent of the word " Indemnities" in that Article; and the whole of the Vth Article, taken together, amounts to an express stipulation to pay every Debt due to Individuals, except such as they might claim for Indemnities for Captures and Condemnations, and must have been so construed had the IId Article continued in the Treaty. On its being erased, the Vth Article stands alone as a promise to pay, with the single exception of Indemnities for Captures and Condemnations. It will, Sir, be well recollected by the distinguished Characters who had the management of the Negotiation, that the payment for illegal Captures, with Damages and Indemnities, was demanded on one side, and the renewal of the Treaty of 1778, on the other; that they were considered as of equivalent value, and that they only formed the subject of the IInd Article; and that, as to the payment of Indemnities for Embargoes, in consequence of the cargoes being put in requisition, or with a view to any other political measure which carried with it nothing hostile to The United States, no controversy ever arose between the Plenipotentiaries of the 2 Nations.

M. de Talleyrand.

ROBERT LIVINGSTON.

No. 57.-The Secretary of State to Mr. Charles Pinckney. (Extract.) Washington, 6th February, 1804. YOUR last Letter, not already acknowledged, is that of August 2nd, continued on August 30th.

The Senate having resumed at the present Session, the Convention with Spain, postponed at the last, have thought proper to ratify it; and the President has completed the Act on the part of The United States.

The Instrument is now returned to you with these sanctions, in order to be exchanged for the Ratification of His Catholic Majesty. You will hasten this formality as much as possible, and forward the result to the Government here, that no time may be lost in procuring to our Citizens the benefit stipulated to them. To favor despatch, as well as to guard against casualties, Duplicates and even Triplicates will be proper.

In concurring in this partial provision for the Indemnities due from Spain, it is to be particularly understood that it proceeds from no other considerations, than a wish to shorten the delay of relief to that portion of the Claimaints who are included in the provision, and a determination to avail the residue of the reserve expressly made in behalf of their Claims by the-Article of the Convention. When the decision of the Senate was postponed at the last Session, it was justly hoped, that, before the succeeding one, the Spanish Government would have yielded to the reasonableness and justice of giving to the provision the extent required by The United States: in which case the arrangements would have been simplified, and a foundation laid at once for closing all controversies on the subject. The final refusal of Spain to concur in these views has been thought to give a preference to the course now adopted.

None of the pleas urged by the Spanish Government can in the least invalidate the justice of the Claims, for injuries committed by French Citizens or Agents within her jurisdiction.

If His Catholic Majesty be Sovereign in his own Dominions, Aliens within them are answerable to him for their conduct, and he, of course, is answerable for it to others. This is a principle founded too evidently in reason and usage to be controverted. As well might Spain say that a theft or robbery, committed in the streets of Madrid by a Frenchman on an American, is to be redressed by France, and not by her, as pretend that redress is to be sought for spoliations committed by Cruizers from, or condemnations within, Spanish Ports. Nor is there any room for the distinction between the injuries proceeding from the French Cruizers and the French Consuls. With respect to the Consuls, their acts were either authorized or not authorized by Spain; if authorized by Spain, Spain is answerable for giving them the authority: if not authorized by Spain, they could not be authorized at all,-the Law of Nations giving them no such authority, and France having no right to give it: and being acts without authority, they are not to be regarded as Consular acts, but as much the acts of private individuals as the Cruisers', or any other irregularities committed or instituted by French

Citizens within the jurisdiction of Spain. To say that the Consuls derive their authority from the sanction given by Spain to the authority derived from France, without which sanction, positive or permissive, it is clear that the authority of France within the jurisdiction of Spain would be a nullity, is still to rest the condemnations by the Consuls on the authority of Spain, and to leave her responsible for them.

Under every aspect, therefore, Spain is bound to do justice in this case to the Citizens of The United States, unless she not only pleads a duress, suspending her free agency, and prostrating her national honor, but proves the reality of this duress; and not only proves this duress, but proves, moreover, first, that she did everything in her power to prevent the evil; next, that she did every thing in her power to obtain reparation for it; and lastly, that, in tolerating the evil, she did not deliberately and wilfully surrender the Neutral Rights under her protection, to advantages positive or negative, obtained or expected by herself from France.

The suggestion that France was resorted to for redress is unfounded. It does not appear that any such resort was authorized by the Government of The United States, whilst the Claims against Spain have been uniform and pressing. Nor is it believed that any interpositions have proceeded from the American Legation at Paris. Had, indeed, such interpositions taken place, they would in no respect lessen the obligations of Spain.

Individuals may have made their applications to the French Government; but it will not be pretended that the merits of the question can be affected by that circumstance.

The plea on which it seems that the Spanish Government now principally relies, is the erasure of the IInd Article from our late Convention with France, by which France was released from the Indemnities due for spoliations committed under her immediate responsibility to The United States. This plea did not appear in the early objections of Spain to our Claims. It was an afterthought, resulting from the insufficiency of every other plea, and is certainly as little valid as any other. The injuries for which Indemnities are claimed from Spain, though committed by Frenchmen, took place under Spanish authority; Spain therefore is answerable for them. To her we have looked, and continue to look, for redress. If the injuries done to us by her resulted in any manner from injuries done to her by France, she may, if she pleases, resort to France as we resort to her. But whether her resort to France would be just or unjust, is a question between her and France; not between either her and us, or us and France. We claim against her not against France. In releasing France, therefore, we have not released her. The Claims, again, from which France was released were admitted by France, and the release was for a valuable considera

tion, in a correspondent release of The United States from certain Claims on them. The Claims we make on Spain were never admitted by France, nor made on France by The United States; they made therefore, no part of the bargain with her, and could not be included in the release.

Mr. Charles Pinckney.

JAMES MADISON.

No. 58.-Report of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, of the House of Representatives, relative to the Claims of American Citizens upon the Government of The United States, arising out of the preceding Documents.

THE Memorialists belong to a numerous Class of Citizens, who had Claims upon the Government of France for spoliations committed prior to the 30th day of September, 1800; which Claims were renounced by the Government of The United States, in the Negotiation of the Convention with France, concluded on that day.

The Committee deem it inexpedient, at the present time, to enter into a detailed consideration of the subject. It will, in general, be recollected, that, in 1778, The United States and France mutually bound themselves to each other, in a Treaty of Alliance, containing, among other Stipulations, a mutual guarantee of the Territory of the 2 Governments respectively; and that in a Treaty of Amity and Commerce of the same date, and also in a Consular Convention in 1788, important privileges were conceded by The United States to France, in carrying on belligerent operations in the Neutral Ports of The United States.

On the rupture between France and England, at the commencement of the French Revolution, these Engagements became a source of great embarrassment to The United States. A grave question arose, how far The United States could preserve their Neutrality, consistently with these engagements. 2 of the Members of the Administration considered that the casus fœderis was one of defensive War on the part of France, and that the present War was offensive; and that, consequently, the casus fœderis did not exist. The remaining Members of the Administration thought it not necessary to decide the question ; and President Washington is not known to have avowed an opinion on the subject. On principles of general policy, in reference to the welfare of the Country, until it should become necessary positively to decide the question, the Proclamation of Neutrality was issued on the 22nd April, 1793. This Proclamation, taken in connexion with some of the Provisions of the Treaty with England, of 1794, and the measures of the American Executive, in pursuance of the same policy, and particularly in prohibiting, under the Provisions of the British Treaty,

the sale in our Ports of Prizes made by the French, which had been long practised under the Treaty with France, of 1778, was regarded by the Authorities of France as an infraction of the Treaties subsisting between the 2 Governments. Measures of retaliation and reprisal, as they were called, were adopted by its Government, in the operation of which, vast injury accrued to the lawful commerce of The United States. The various Decrees of the French Government against our commerce, enforced, as they were, with extreme rigor, led the Congress of The United States, by a Law, approved 7th July, 1798, to enact, "that The United States are of right freed and exonerated from the Stipulations of the Treaties and of the Consular Convention heretofore concluded between The United States and France; and that the same shall not henceforth be regarded as legally obligatory on the Government or Citizens of The United States." Laws were also passed to protect the commerce of The United States, and authorizing resistance to the armed Vessels of France.

Against this nullification of the Treaties and Convention, France protested, and professed a readiness for an amicable adjustment of the differences between the 2 Governments.

After one ineffectual Mission on behalf of The United States, a second was sent, in pursuance of overtures made by the Government of France, which succeeded in the Negotiation of a Convention.

The 1st point of the Instructions to Messrs. Ellsworth, Davie, and Murray, the Envoys who negotiated the Convention, was, the indemnification of our Citizens who had suffered by the illegal acts of the French Government. Our Commissioners were forbidden to conclude a Treaty which did not provide for this object. Their Instructions on this head are expressed in the following terms: "1st. At the opening of the Negotiation, you will inform the French Ministers that The United States expect from France, as an indispensable condition of the Treaty, a Stipulation to make to the Citizens of The United States a full compensation for all losses and damages which they shall have sustained by reason of irregular or illegal Captures or Condemnations of their Vessels or other property." At the close of the Instructions, the following Articles are declared to be ultimata :

"1. That an Article be inserted for establishing a Board, with suitable powers, to hear and determine the Claims of our Citizens, for the causes herein before expressed, and binding France to pay or secure payment for the sums which may be awarded.

"2. That the Treaties and Consular Convention, declared to be no longer obligatory by Act of Congress, be not, in whole, or in part, revived by the new Treaty; but that all the Engagements to which The United States are to become Parties, be specified in the new Treaty.