ning of the last century,-a system, perfectly akin to the parade and pageantry, the universal influence of the theatrical court of Louis the 14th, introduced into all the concerns, habits and fashions of life. The necessity of rapid decision and immediate action the last thirty years, has been so great, that generals have neither been able to indulge themselves with a whole campaign in crossing a river, nor ministers with a winter's residence in an agreeable city in arranging the positions of one or two small states in Germany. The way, in which the most momentous matters were disposed of at the Congress of Vienna, shows, that the parties were not only aware of their own strength, and of the strength of each other respectively, but, having ascertained the exact measure of these two circumstances, they proceeded, at once, to settle, like men of business, every point in discussion, without wasting their time in long disquisitions upon topics of national law, which could be any thing but novel or entertaining to a well drilled diplomatist of twenty years standing.

The usual courtesies of intercourse have thus far compelled the United States to enter into a discussion of this French claim, though the object of presenting it, could easily be guessed, and the facts and arguments, by which it has been supported, admit of an immediate and conclusive answer. We shall spare the reader the fatigue of following, step by step, the whole series of correspondence, that has taken place on this subject since 1817, either in this country or in France. But before offering a brief account of this singular and unlooked for transaction, we take the opportunity to remark, that France has not manifested the slightest disposition to withdraw the demand, and, having made use of it for some time as a ground for declining to negotiate on the subject of discriminating duties, it now serves the convenient purpose of arresting the whole progress of the discussion, in regard to the just claims of American citizens on that government.

France has never said, she was placed in Louisiana on the footing of the most favoured nation, gratuitously on the

part of America. That would be a precarious and feeble mode, indeed, either of asserting or supporting a claim. But she enjoyed the privilege conditionally;-by purchase. The cession of the province was a generous and abundant equivalent for it. M. Pasquier informed Mr. Gallatin in 1819, that the stipulation of the eighth article was the solid, real compensation, made to France, for the transfer of this vast property;-the purchase money, the 80,000,000 of livres, could be viewed in no other light than, as an incidental, or accessary portion of the just value. And this con

sideration, as far as regards the ports of Louisiana, is as much an equivalent for a privilege, as those equivalents, that other nations offer to America, to be received in all the ports of that extensive country, without suffering the penalty of a discriminating duty. The United States and England have made a bargain, by the terms of which the vessels of the two nations, laden with certain descriptions of produce, enjoy, in the ports of each other, the same and mutual exemptions. This is a bargain of a general nature, applying to all the ports of a country. The United States have offered substantially the same commercial compact to France. In 1803, the First Consul entered into a contract with America of a specific, or local description. An extensive and valuable province was transferred for various considerations or reservations, viz., that the inhabitants of the ceded territory should be incorporated into the union, &c.--that the United States should execute the treaties, made by Spain with the Indians, that for twelve years the ships of France and Spain should enjoy special privileges in the ports of Louisiana. These, for example, may be considered reservations; we need not say, all equally binding. Then, in another convention we find the United States agreeing to pay France a specified sum of money, and to pay debts, due by France to the citizens of the United States. Whether we apply to these different conditions the same reservation or consideration, it is quite clear and undeniable, that they all form a part of the price, paid for Louisiana. By this arrangement France abandoned the sovereignty of Louisiana, but by no

means the exclusive use of the property. The distinction between these two positions is not a difficult one to understand. Even if the eighth article of the first convention was striken out, an illustration of the principle still exists in that instrument, for it was quite as competent to the United States to reserve to France a perpetual use of the ports of Louisiana as a use for twelve years. It was not the business of France to enquire into the reasons, that induced the United States to prefer this mode of compensation, and that government would, probably, not be much gratified by the supposition, that the reasons were not good ones. Indeed, a very short experience has convinced Europe, that the very last reproach, we can offer the American government, is an indifference, or a want of attention and vigilance to the interests of its citizens. The United States, holding the sovereignty, could enforce within the territory of Louisiana, the observance of all its municipal laws, and the exact execution of treaties with foreign powers. This species of authority is, by no means, incompatible with perpetual commercial privileges, granted to foreign nations. They confer no right in executing laws. This right, which literally constitutes sovereignty, belongs to the nation in this particular instance, possessing the territory. The parties to this contract knew, that the federal constitution allowed no preference among the states,-by the compact of union they are subject to the same charges and enjoy the same privileges. Louisiana, acquired as a territory, was entitled, under the provisions of the third article, to be incorporated into the union with the least possible delay. "No preference in the words of the ninth section (first article of the constitution) shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one state over those of another." "But this peculiar condition of the ports of Louisiana arose from a state of things, preexistent to her admission as a state, or acquisition, even as a territory. In the opinion of Congress, the instrument of cession of Louisiana comprised no resemblance to statutes, containing commercial regulations, or prescribing the modes of ascertaining and collecting revenue. It is well

here to mark the obvious difference of the two principles,the one forbids Congress to encumber with restrictions, or foster with advantages, not common to all, a territory, created a state, the other principle requires Congress carefully to fulfil terms or provisions, exacted or consented to as the condition of its admission. The parties, having, therefore, agreed to admit Louisiana as soon as possible, it only remains to enquire upon what terms this act should take place. There was but one mode, and that in conformity with the conditions of the treaty. Two years after the admission of Louisiana (which took place in 1812) France and Spain enjoyed in her ports all the benefits, secured by the seventh article, and which could never be granted to any other nation. Congress, therefore, determined that the conditions of the seventh article, were not at variance with the provisions of the constitution in regard to the regulations of commerce or revenue in the different ports of the United States, though it never could be said, that a preference was not shown to the ports of Louisiana in the French and Spanish trade. It is true this inequality lasted only two years, but it is unnecessary to observe, that that circumstance affects only the duration of the privilege, not the value or soundness of the principle. If, therefore, there was at this day any contradiction between the third and eighth article, how could Congress, in 1812, surmount the objection from the much stronger inconsistency, which, on this supposition, must have existed between the third and seventh article.*

But we

This is simply a legal construction of the 8th article, wholly extracted from the instruments themselves. shall find that very considerable force may be given to it by circumstances, arising from the nature of the trade, and the situation of the province. We cannot be long in discovering

*The third article is in these words. "The inhabitants of the ceded territory shall be incorporated into the union of the United States, and admitted as soon as possible, according to the principle of the federal constitution, to the enjoyment of all the rights, immunities and advantages of citizens of the United States."

the reasons, that should make it extremely important to France to obtain the perpetual possession of this trade. The literal, scholastic view of the subject is much indebted to considerations of policy, thus obvious and impressive. We observe, therefore, that great emphasis is laid on the fact, that Louisiana was a French colony, entirely imbued with French habits; and having always been accustomed to the products and manufactures of that country, it would have been regarded as an act of injustice and infidelity in the Metropole to abandon them to the uncertain mercy of a government, that, to say the least, could not feel the least sympathy with them. France sought to secure to this colony a perpetual enjoyment of the luxuries and necessaries of her fertile soil,-of her rich and ingenious manufactures,-to herself the benefit of the great trade, this consumption, daily and rapidly augmenting, would create and maintain.

The value of this cession has been estimated at 600,000,000 dollars, it was stated by a member on the floor of Congress to exceed the sum of 50,000,000 dollars, and, yet, the First Consul parted with it for a sum not exceeding 17,000,000 dollars. There is no other way to reconcile these different statements than by supposing, that the 8th article constituted a portion of the compensation.

This is a view of the manner, in which the French claim, under the 8th article of the treaty of Louisiana, has been presented to the consideration of the United States. The reader, we believe, will not be much struck by the ingenuity, certainly not by the force of the argument. It will, immediately, occur to every one, that the 7th and 8th articles, themselves, already quoted on the preceding page, are the best answer possible to the demand. The 7th article gives all possible encouragement for a "limited time" to the commerce of France and the United States, " as it is reciprocally advantageous." But that limited time, having expired by the terms of the article, and for the reason given in the article, it is declared in the next stipulation, that the ships of France shall, thereafter, be treated on the footing of the most favoured nation. It will, also, not escape notice that