Provision for a Commission. By an act of July 13, 1832, provision was made for carrying the convention into effect. This act provided for the appointment of "three commissioners, who shall form a board, whose duty it shall be to receive and examine all claims which may be presented to them under the convention, which are provided for by the said convention, according to the provisions of the same, and the principles of justice, equity, and the law of nations." Provision was made for a secretary, versed in the English, French, and Spanish languages, and also for a clerk. The commissioners were required to meet in Washington on the first Monday in August 1832, and to terminate their duties within two years thereafter. They were empowered to make rules and regulations; and it was provided that all papers in the Department of State relating to the claims should be delivered to them. At the close of their labors they were directed to certify a list of their awards to the Secretary of the Treasury, on whom was imposed the duty of distributing among the persons in whose favor the awards were made, in ratable proportions, the moneys received from France. The salary of each commissioner was fixed at $3,000 a year; of the secretary at $2,000, and the clerk at $1,500. Appointment of Commissioners. As As commissioners the President appointed G. W. Campbell, of Tennessee; John K. Kane, of Pennsylvania, and R. M. Saunders, of North Carolina. secretary he appointed John E. Frost. Mr. Campbell, the oldest of the commissioners, had had a long career in the public service. A native of Tennessee, where he was born in 1768, and a graduate of Princeton, he had been a Representative in Congress, a Senator of the United States, Secretary of the Treasury, and minister to Russia. Mr. Kane was a native of the State of New York and a graduate of Yale, but after studying law he entered upon the practice of his profession in Philadelphia, of which city he was solicitor from 1828 to 1830. In Federal politics he figured as a prominent supporter of President Jackson. He formed an active and useful member of the board, and, it is understood, wrote its final report. His "Notes" on its decisions will be referred to hereafter. In 1845 he became attorney-general of Pennsylvania, and in the following year was appointed district judge for the United States at Philadelphia. Mr. Saunders was a native of North Carolina and a graduate of the university of that State. He held numerous public positions, serving at different times as attorney-general of North Carolina, a member of the State legislature, a Representative in Congress, and a judge of the superior courts of the State. He introduced in the Baltimore convention in 1844 the two-thirds rule which was adopted by that body, and which has ever since been adhered to in Democratic national conventions. In 1845 he was appointed minister to Spain. 14 Stats. at L. 574. * Mr. Saunders was not one of the original members of the board, but was appointed to succeed Thomas H. Williams, who held the position only for a short time. Rules of Procedure. The board having met at the time required by the act of Congress, it adjourned on the 18th of September 1832, to meet again on the third Monday in the following December, for the purpose of examining the memorials which might in the mean time have been filed with the secretary, and of deciding whether they conformed to the rules adopted by the commissioners for the government of their procedure. The rules were as follows: "OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONERS UNDER THE ACT TO CARRY INTO EFFECT THE CONVENTION WITH FRANCE, "Washington City, 18th September 1832. "Ordered, That all persons having claims under the convention between the United States and His Majesty the King of the French, concluded on the 4th of July 1831, do file memorials of the same with the Secretary of the Board. Every memorial so filed must be addressed to the Commissioners; it must set forth minutely and particularly the facts and circumstances whence the right to prefer such claim is derived to the claimant; and it must be verified by his affidavit. "And in order that the claimants may be apprised of what the Board now considers necessary to be averred in every such memorial, before the same will be received and acted on, it is further "Ordered, That in every such memorial it shall be set forth: "1. For and in behalf of whom the claim is preferred. "2. Whether the claimant is a citizen of the United States of America, and, if so, whether he is native or naturalized, and where is now his domicil; if he claims in his own right, then whether he was a citizen when the claim had its origin, and where was then his domicil; or if he claims in the right of another, then whether such other was a citizen when the claim had its origin, and where was then, and where is now, his domicil. "3. Whether the entire amount of the claim does now, and did at the time when the claim had its origin, belong solely and absolutely to the claimant; and if any other person is or has been interested therein, or in any part thereof, then, who is such other person, and what is or was the nature and extent of his interest; and how, when, by what means, and for what consideration, the transfer of rights or interest, if any such were, took place between the parties. "4. Whether the claimant, or any other who may at any time have been entitled to the amount claimed, or any part thereof, hath ever received any, and, if any, what sum of money or other equivalent as indemnitication for the whole or any part of the loss or injury upon which the claim is founded; and if so, when and from whom the same was received. "And that time may be allowed to the claimants to prepare and file the memorials above mentioned, it is further "Ordered, That, when this Board shall close the present session, it will adjourn to meet again on the 3rd Monday of December next, at which time it will proceed to decide whether the memorials which may have been filed with the Secretary are in conformity to the foregoing orders, and proper to be received for examination, and to transact any other business that may come before it; and that the Secretary cause public notice hereof to be given in the journals authorized to publish the laws of the United States. "By order of the Board: "J. E. FROST, Secretary." Papers Relating to "G. W. CAMPBELL. By a joint resolution of February 19, 1833, Congress authorized the Secretary of State to deliver to the commissioners "the evidences of any claims submitted to and rejected by the commissioners for the settlement of claims under the treaty with Spain which was made on the 22d day of February 1819, and finally ratified and confirmed on the 22d day of February 1822, which evidences shall be returned to the Department of State when the commission shall expire." The obvious purpose of this resolution was to place in the hands of the commission all the evidence in regard to claims which, after having been presented to the commission under the treaty of 1819 with Spain as claims against that country, should be presented to the commissioners under the convention with France as claims against the French Government. 2 Work of the Commission. The labors of the commission proved to be very onerous, and its existence was twice prolonged, first for a year and then till the 1st of January 1836.+ As the board adjourned December 31, 1835, the whole period of its duration was about three years and five months. Accompanying a report made by the commissioners on June 7, 1834, in response to a resolution of the Senate, there is a list of all the claims that had been presented to the board divided into three classes-those that had been recognized as prima facie falling within the treaty, those that had been suspended, and those that had been rejected. The total amount of the claims presented, principal and interest, was $51,834,170.15. Of those recognized as falling within the treaty, the principal amounted to $17,065,917.36, and the interest to $24,574,920.99; in all, $41,640,838.35.5 At the close of the sessions of the commission it appeared that the whole number of claims presented was 3,148, of which 1,567 were allowed and 1,581 disallowed. The total amount awarded was $9,352, 193.47.7 Delay in Execution of The first of the six annual installments of the sum due from France under the convention became payable on the 2d of February 1833, a year after the exchange of the ratifications. When the commission adjourned nothing had as yet been paid, but the controversy between the two governments in regard to the execution of the convention by France was nearing its close. This controversy grew out of opposition to the convention in the French Chamber of Deputies. When the first installment fell due, the United States, standing upon the engagements of the convention, negotiated a draft through the Bank of the United States on the French minister of finance. At that time the French Government had not ventured to ask for an appropriation, and the draft was allowed to go to protest. The Duc de Broglie, then minister for foreign affairs, complained of this action on the part of the United States. He urged that under the French constitutional system the financial clauses of the convention could not be 14 Stats. at L. 668. Am. State Papers, For. Rel. VI. 185. 3 Act of June 19, 1834, 4 Stats. at L. 679. Act of March 3, 1835, 4 Stats. at L. 778. S. Ex. Doc. 417, 23 Cong. 1 sess. 6S. Ex. Doc. 204, 24 Cong. 1 sess. H. Ex. Doc. 117, 24 Cong. 1 sess. The draft was in the form of a bill drawn by the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States on the minister of state and finance of France, in favor of Samuel Jaudon, cashier of the Bank of the United States, or order. (United States v. Bank of the United States, 5 Howard, carried into effect in that country any more than in the United States without the cooperation of the legislative branch of the government, but that the French Government had promised to do all that it could to effect the execution of the convention. The United States took the ground that the convention, having been constitutionally concluded and ratified, was obligatory on every department of the contracting governments. In April 1833 the French Government presented to the Chamber of Deputies a bill to carry the convention into effect, but it was not deemed prudent then to press the measure to a vote, and the same course was taken at the next session. In January 1834 the bill was for the third time submitted to the Chamber of Deputies. On the 10th of March the committee to whom it was referred recommended its adoption, but in the following April, when it was pressed to a vote, it was rejected by a vote of 176 to 168. At a brief and merely formal meeting of the chambers in July the bill was not renewed, but the government promised to submit it again at the session beginning in December. In the mean time Edward Livingston arrived at Paris as minister of the United States. When he presented his letter of credence to the King, the latter warmly expressed his good feeling toward the United States, and declared that the convention would be faithfully performed, though circumstances had prevented its immediate execution. He stated, not only as king, but as an individual whose promise would be fulfilled, that the necessary laws would be passed at the next meeting of the chambers. Livingston duly reported these assurances to his government, but stated that he did not hope for any decisive action before the middle of January. One motive for the delay was, he said, an expectation that the President's message might arrive before the discussion, and that it might contain something to show "a strong national feeling on the subject." This was "not mere conjecture;" he knew it to be a fact. As he had previously intimated, on the tone of the President's message would largely depend not only the payment of the claims, but "the national reputation for energy."3 Acting upon this advice, it is probable that President Jackson's Recommen- Jackзon exceeded the expectations of those who hoped dation of Reprisals. for an exhibition of "energy." In his message to Congress he declared that the executive branch of the government had exhausted all the authority which it possessed in the matter, and which there was any reason to believe could be beneficially employed; and that, while he was confident that the idea of acquiescing in the refusal to execute the convention would not for a moment be entertained by any branch of the government, "any further negotiation" on the subject was "equally out of the question." He therefore recommended that he be invested with power to make reprisals, in case France should continue to withhold payment of the installments that were due. This recommendation was duly referred both in the Action of the Senate. Senate and in the House of Representatives to the appropriate committees. The first action upon it was taken in the Senate, where, on January 6, 1835, a report was made by Mr. Clay from the Committee on Foreign Relations. The report was very 1 H. Ex. Doc. 40, 23 Cong. 2 sess. 2 H. Ex. Doc. 2, 23 Cong. 2 sess. temperate and very able. It stated that the committee entirely concurred with the President as to the justice of the claims. Nearly two years had elapsed since the first installment of the indemnity became due. The President thought that the time had arrived to make reprisals, which would not, in his opinion, give France any just cause for war; but he also left to Congress the consideration of awaiting further action of the French chambers. The committee had reviewed the whole correspondence. The Government of France had endeavored to secure the execution of the treaty. The delays in doing so were satisfactorily accounted for. When the bill to carry the convention into effect was rejected, the minister of foreign affairs immediately resigned his place in consequence of the vote of the chamber. During the debate the principle of indemnity seemed to have been generally admitted, but opinions differed as to the amount. Some of the members appeared to think that France was a prey to the rapacity of foreign powers; that the United States owed her a debt of gratitude and ought at least to have moderated their demands; that the decrees of France were no more than a just retaliation for the edicts of Great Britain; that the claims were in the hands of a few speculators, and that on a fresh negotiation the amount would be materially reduced; and that as to 8,000,000 of the 25,000,000 francs, the United States was seeking a double satisfaction, first from Spain under the Florida treaty, and then from France under the present convention; but the controlling motive of the majority appeared to be the impression that the amount was too large. The French Government believed, said Mr. Clay, that the United States would await the renewal of its efforts to obtain an appropriation. It was manifest that the President's recommendation of the contingent measure of reprisals was due to the failure of pledges which he understood had been given; but ought the committee to advise the adoption of such a measure because the King did not call the legislative bodies together some sixty or ninety days earlier than the period of their accustomed meeting? Such a call might not have been attended with beneficent results. The committee, said Mr. Clay, recommended adherence to negotiation. The President thought reprisals a pacific measure. Nevertheless, while reprisals did not of themselves produce a state of public war, they not infrequently were the immediate precursors of it. It was inconceivable that a nation like France would submit without retaliation, and this would inevitably terminate in war. Reprisals, the report declared, so far partook of the character of war that they were an appeal from reason to force. In conclusion, the committee recommended the adoption of a resolution to the effect that it was inexpedient at that time to pass any law vesting in the President authority to make reprisals on French property in the contingency of provision not being made for paying the indemnity during the pending session of the French chambers. The vote in the Senate on this recommendation was taken on the 14th of January. The debate was participated in by leading members of that body, and the resolution was amended so as to read: "It is inexpedient at present to adopt any legislative measures in regard to the state of affairs between the United States and France." In this form the resolution was unanimously adopted.1 1 Congressional Debates, XI. Part 1, pp. 103, 200. |