The United States were anxious concerning the effect of this upon their future.1 But the failure of the Treaty of Amiens to restore a permanent peace induced Napoleon to determine to transfer all the Louisianas to the United States. He consulted Berthier and Marbois. The conference lasted far into the night. Berthier opposed the cession. Marbois favored it. Early the next morning he called Marbois to him and said, “Je nonce à la Louisiane. Ce n'est point seulement la Nouvelle-Orléans que je veux céder; c'est toute la colonie sans en rien réserver."2

The interview took place on the 10th of April; the decision was made on the morning of the 11th. On the afternoon of the same day the negotiations opened by an abrupt question from Talleyrand to Livingston whether the United States wished for the whole of Louisiana. Livingston, who had been instructed only to negotiate for New Orleans, and the Mississippi as a boundary line, said, "No, we only want New Orleans and the Floridas." But he soon found that he was dealing with a much larger question, and Monroe arrived the same day from America with fresh instructions to aid in its disposition. Napoleon empowered Marbois to negotiate for France, and instructed. him to consent to the transfer, provided he could secure 50,000,000 francs. He did secure 80,000,000, twenty millions of which were to be applicable to the extinguishment of claims against France, and sixty millions were payable in cash to France. When it was concluded, Napoleon said: "Cette accession de territoire, affermit pour toujours la puissance des Etats-Unis, et je viens de donner à l'Angleterre un rival maritime, qui tôt ou tard abaissera son orgueil."

Between the conclusion of the two Treaties of 1800 and 1803 a correspondence arose respecting the construction of the former Treaty." Robert Livingston, the Minister of the United States, complained that the Council of Prizes (which he regarded "as a political board")8 was proceeding in violation of the provisions of the Treaty. On the

12 F. R. F., 552.

28 Garden, Traités de Paix, 64. leans only that I wish to cede; it is 8 Garden, Traités de Paix, 54. 46 F. R. F., 162, No. 460.

"I renounce Louisiana. It is not New Orall the colony, reserving nothing."

52 F. R. F., 552.

68 Garden, Traités de Paix, 88. "This accession of territory consolidates forever the power of the United States, and I have just given to England a maritime rival who sooner or later will humble her pride."

6

3

26th of January, 1802, he was "almost hopeless" as to the claims.1 His anxiety communicated itself to Madison.2 The French Court next proposed to meet the French obligation in paper money, while the appropriations on the American side were payable in coin. Livingston thought Bonaparte stood in the way, and that, should anything happen to him, France would "very soon be able to look all demands in the face."5 Monroe was sent out to aid in the negotiations, with special powers as to New Orleans and the Floridas. He arrived just in time to find the First Consul bent on parting with Louisiana and settling with the United States. On the 9th of March, 1803, Talleyrand was already giving signs of yielding. He expressed surprise at the amount of the American claims advanced by Livingston (20,000,000 francs), but avowed his purpose of paying them, whatever they might be, and asked for a specified statement. An explanation, which may account for part of this, may be found in two dates. The peace of Amiens was signed the 25th of March, 1802; the declaration of the renewal of the war was dated the 18th of May, 1803.

The Convention of 1800, after providing for the restoration of certain captured property, contained a provision that the debts contracted by one of the two nations with individuals of the other should be paid, but that this clause should not extend to indemnities claimed on account of captures or condemnations. The Convention of 1803 stipulated that these debts, with interest at six per cent., should not exceed twenty millions of francs.

To entitle a claimant to participate in this fund, it was necessary: 1. That he should be a citizen of the United States who had been, and was at the time of the signing of the Treaty, a creditor of France, and who had no established house of commerce in France, England, or other country than the United States, in partnership with foreigners; 2. That, if the claim were for a debt, it should have been contracted for supplies before the 30th of September, 1800, and should have been claimed of the actual Government of France before the 30th of April, 1803; 3. That, if for prizes, it should not be for a prize whose condemnation had been or should be confirmed; 4. That, if for captures, it should not be a case in which the council of prizes had ordered restitu

tion, or in which the claimant could not have had recourse to the government of the French Republic, or where the captors were sufficient; 5. That it should either be for supplies, for embargoes, or for prizes made at sea, in which the appeal had been properly lodged within the time mentioned in the Convention of 1800.

The distribution of this money gave rise to some sharp correspondence.1 The claims which were excluded from participation in the distribution have become known as the "French Spoliation Claims." They have been often the subject of Congressional discussion and report.

16 F. R. F., 182-207.

2 See particularly 5 F. R. F., 314, 352, and 6 F. R. F., 3-207, 558, 1121, and S. R. 10, 2d Sess. 41st Cong., and the various authorities there cited; also, among others, an elaborate debate in the Senate, 11 Debates, 2d Sess. 23d Cong. [See the Act of Congress approved January 20, 1885 (post p. 92) by which the claims were referred for ascertainment as to facts to the Court of Claims.]

PART I.-STATE PAPERS

Extracts from Messages of President Adams, and Replies of the Senate and House

SPECIAL SESSION MESSAGE1

UNITED STATES, May 16, 1797.

Gentlemen of the Senate and Gentlemen of the House of Representatives:

The personal inconveniences to the members of the Senate and of the House of Representatives in leaving their families and private affairs at this season of the year are so obvious that I the more regret the extraordinary occasion which has rendered the convention of Congress indispensable.

It would have afforded me the highest satisfaction to have been able to congratulate you on a restoration of peace to the nations of Europe whose animosities have endangered our tranquillity; but we have still abundant cause of gratitude to the Supreme Dispenser of National Blessings for general health and promising seasons, for domestic and social happiness, for the rapid progress and ample acquisitions of industry through extensive territories, for civil, political, and religious liberty. While other states are desolated with foreign war or convulsed with intestine divisions, the United States present the pleasing prospect of a nation governed by mild and equal laws, generally satisfied with the possession of their rights, neither envying the advantages nor fearing the power of other nations, solicitous only for the maintenance of order and justice and the preservation of liberty, increasing daily in their attachment to a system of government in proportion to their experience of its utility, yielding a ready and general obedience to laws flowing from the reason and resting on the only solid foundation-the affections of the people.

It is with extreme regret that I shall be obliged to turn your thoughts to other circumstances, which admonish us that some of these felicities. may not be lasting. But if the tide of our prosperity is full and a reflux. commencing, a vigilant circumspection becomes us, that we may meet out reverses with fortitude and extricate ourselves from their consequences with all the skill we possess and all the efforts in our power. In giving to Congress information of the state of the Union and rec

1 Richardson, Messages, vol. 1, p. 233.

ommending to their consideration such measures as appear to me to be necessary or expedient, according to my constitutional duty, the causes and the objects of the present extraordinary session will be explained. After the President of the United States received information that the French Government had expressed serious discontents at some proceedings of the Government of these States said to affect the interests of France, he thought it expedient to send to that country a new minister, fully instructed to enter on such amicable discussions and to give such candid explanations as might happily remove the discontents and suspicions of the French Government and vindicate the conduct of the United States. For this purpose he selected from among his fellowcitizens a character whose integrity, talents, experience, and services had placed him in the rank of the most esteemed and respected in the nation. The direct object of his mission was expressed in his letter of credence to the French Republic, being "to maintain that good understanding which from the commencement of the alliance had subsisted between the two nations, and to efface unfavorable impressions, banish suspicions, and restore that cordiality which was at once the evidence and pledge of a friendly union." And his instructions were to the same effect, "faithfully to represent the disposition of the Government and people of the United States (their disposition being one), to remove jealousies and obviate complaints by shewing that they were groundless, to restore that mutual confidence which had been so unfortunately and injuriously impaired, and to explain the relative interests of both countries and the real sentiments of his own."

A minister thus specially commissioned it was expected would have proved the instrument of restoring mutual confidence between the two Republics. The first step of the French Government corresponded with that expectation. A few days before his arrival at Paris the French minister of foreign relations informed the American minister then resident at Paris of the formalities to be observed by himself in taking leave, and by his successor preparatory to his reception. These formalities they observed, and on the 9th of December presented officially to the minister of foreign relations, the one a copy of his letters of recall, the other a copy of his letters of credence.

These were laid before the Executive Directory. Two days afterwards the minister of foreign relations informed the recalled American minister that the Executive Directory had determined not to re