CHAPTER XII

THE SPOLIATION CLAIMS

THE depredations committed upon American commerce during the wars of the French Revolution and Empire gave rise to claims for indemnity against several European powers. The satisfaction of these demands involved long delay and many difficulties.

Early claims against England were paid under a provision of Jay's treaty, and the final account with her was settled by the War of 1812. The claims against Spain were ultimately adjusted by the treaty of 1819, in connection with the purchase of Florida. A treaty with Denmark in 1830 provided for the payment of indemnity by that nation; the claims against Denmark were partially offset by counter-claims of that power against the United States.1 Demands upon Naples and Holland were persistently urged for many years, and in each case payment was refused. Finally the appearance of a strong United States squadron in the Bay of Naples in 1832 induced the king to make compensation. The claims against Holland "were dropped and most of them were subsequently, in conformity

2

1 Tr. and Conv. p. 1286; St. Pap. vol. iv, p. 490, vol. v, pp. 4248, vol. ix, p. 106; Boston Monthly Magazine, January, 1826.

2 St. Pap. vol. xi, pp. 487-519; Richardson, vol. iii, p. 149; No. Amer. Rev. October, 1825; Griffis's Life of M. C. Perry, ch. xi.

with the suggestions of the Dutch government, presented for payment by France under the treaty of 1832, and were allowed and paid.” 1

1

The demands upon France fall into two classes, according as the spoliations took place before or after the ratification of the convention of September 30, 1800. Depredations committed under the decrees of the French Republic were disposed of, as far as international negotiations were concerned, by the conventions of 1800 and 1803. Seizures under the imperial decrees of Napoleon later became the subject of negotiation. The claims founded on this latter class will be considered first.

Demands of indemnity for spoliations under the empire were urged upon Napoleon at an early period. In the fall of 1812 Joel Barlow, the American minister to France, made a fruitless journey to Wilna in West Russia in order to confer with the French minister of foreign relations, having been encouraged to believe that satisfactory terms could be made at that time; but Napoleon's disastrous Russian campaign had just come to an end, and he was in full retreat from Moscow. Obviously nothing could be done then, and Barlow died on the return journey to Paris.' Albert Gallatin went to France

1 For. Rel. vol. v, pp. 598–629; Tr. and Conv. p. 1311; Wharton, vol. ii, pp. 50-54; House Ex. Doc. 117, 24th Congress, 1st Session, p. 87; No. Amer. Rev. October, 1825. For the terms of the French treaty of 1832 (concluded July 4, 1831), see next page.

2 St. Pap. vol. viii, pp. 323-361, vol. ix, pp. 213-219; Todd's Life of Barlow, ch. ix.

in 1816 and began a long and tedious negotiation, which lasted with intermissions nearly fifteen years, being brought to a conclusion in 1831 by William C. Rives. The Bourbon government of the Restoration was hostile to the American claims, and its ministers evaded, delayed, and postponed; but with the accession of Louis Philippe in 1830 the attitude of the French became more conciliatory. Compromise was necessary, but finally, July 4, 1831, a treaty was concluded, and ratified the next year, by which France agreed to pay twenty-five million francs, which was only about one fifth the amount of loss from the depredations. The United States agreed to pay France one and a half million francs to satisfy certain claims of the French. Even after this the conduct of the French government was marked by indifference and neglect, and the Chamber of Deputies for several years refused to appropriate money to put the treaty into effect. Amity between the two nations became strained to the point of breaking off diplomatic relations. At last, in 1836, Great Britain having offered mediation, the matter was arranged and the French government took steps to discharge the obligation. The commission appointed under an act of Congress to execute this treaty allowed claims against Holland and also some against Spain and Naples.1

1 Tr. and Conv. pp. 1309-1312; Richardson, vol. ii, pp. 265–276, vol. iii, pp. 100–107, 129–132, 135–145, 152–160, 178–185, 188–214, 215-222, 227; Rep. Sen. Com. vol. vi, pp. 47–71; Ho. Ex. Doc. 117, 24th Congress, 1st Session, pp. 86, 87; Wharton, vol. ii, p. 54;

1

The depredations committed by the French before 1801 gave rise to claims which may be further divided into two classes. First are those which were the subject of the second article of the convention of 1800, and which were surrendered by the United States when the convention was ratified with the condition imposed by Bonaparte, that "the two states renounce the respective pretensions which were the object of said article." The second class of claims comprises those which were the subject of the fourth and fifth articles of the convention of 1800, and were settled by the convention of 1803, when the United States assumed them to the extent of twenty million livres as part of the price paid for Louisiana. They were chiefly founded on debts due for supplies furnished, for losses on account of the embargo of 1793 at Bordeaux, and for property captured but not condemned. There was great delay in carrying out the provisions of the convention of 1803, which called forth an acrimonious correspondence between the United States minister, Robert R. Livingston, and the American commissioners appointed to adjust the claims and distribute the indemnity. A so-called conjectural note appended to the treaty gave a list of losses which was intended to aid the adjustment No. Amer. Rev. October, 1826; American Quarterly Review, June, 1835; Parton's Life of Jackson, vol. iii, ch. xl. For lists of claims against France, Naples, Holland, and Denmark, see For. Rel. vol. vi, pp. 384-553.

1 See Appendix II.

of claims, but it was merely an inaccurate memorandum, and, being the subject of much discussion and difference of opinion, it proved more of a hindrance than a help.1

There now remains to be considered only the single class of claims, the subject of the second article of the convention of 1800, which have given rise to a vast amount of discussion, in and out of Congress, from the time of the French Revolution to the present day. These are what people commonly mean when they speak of the French spoliation claims or the old French claims."

For the sake of getting rid of the obligations imposed by the treaties of 1778 and 1788, which had caused embarrassment in the past and were likely to in the future, the United States willingly relieved France of all obligation to the claimants; but the American merchants and mariners who had been despoiled derived no benefit from this arrangement. They were debarred from the opportunity of prosecuting their claims against France, and their only hope of relief lay in the sense of justice of their own government, which had bartered the claims for a substantial equivalent.

The claimants made their first application to Congress for relief in 1802, shortly after the convention was ratified. The committee to which the

1 Doc. 102, pp. 779–832, Tr. and Conv. pp. 1307, 1308.

2 For a review of the subject, see Wharton, vol. ii, pp. 714