Glass. Book 1 '/.^ X8th CONGRESS, I 91 1 2(1 Session. -^ W^^'^iL^t^ raoM THE PRESIDEXT OF THE UNITED STATES^ TEAFSMITTISE& A REPORT FROM THE SECRETARY OF STATE. WITH COPIES OF Tht Correspondence with the Government of France, TOrCHISG THE IlfTERPRETATIOX OF THE EIGHTH AETICIE OF THE TEEATY rtje (ttuuion of Honimuna. rEBRUART 17, 13-25. deferred to the Committee on Foreig-n AFxir» WASHIXGTO.N . fni^sTtn BT Gi-l.ES iif SEi.TOS'. 1825. J -J [91] S To the House of Bepresentatives of the United States: I transmit herewith to the House a report from the Secretary of State, with copies of the correspondence with the government of France, requested fay the resolution of the House, of the 25th of Jan- uary last. JAMES MONROE. Washington, )Tth February, 1825- [911 Depahtmext or State, Washington^ 16th February, 1825. Ihe Secretary of State, to whom lias been referred a resolution of the House of Representatives, of the 25th January, requesting that the President would *'Coramunirate to that House any correspondence in his possession, which he may not deem it im|)r«)per to disriose, which has taken place between the Government of the United States* and that of France, touching the interpretation of the 8th article of the treaty of the cession of Louisiana," has the honor of reporting to the President copies of the documents requested by that resolii- ^'°"* JOHN QUINCY ADAMS. [91] LIST OF PAPERS SENT. 1. Mf. (leNcuville toMr. Adams, l5th December, 1817, translation. 2. Mr. Adams to Mr. de Ncuville, 23 do do copy. 3. Ml". dcNeuvilleto Mr. Adams, l61h Juno, 1818, translation. 4. Mr. Rothtosamo, 19tbJu!y, 1820, do. 5. Mr. Gallatin to same, No. 155, 3lst July, 1820, extract. 6. Mr. Roth to same, 8tli August do do. 7. Mr. Gallatin to Mr Pasquier, loth August, 1820, do. 8. Mr. Adams to Mr. Gallatin, 24 24th do do do. 9. Mr. Gallatin to Mr. Adams, l6l 19th September do do. fl Bai on Pasquier to Mr. Gallatin, 13th do. translation. 6 Mr. Gallatin to Mr. Pasquier, 15th do copy. 10. Mr. Gallatin to Mr. Adams, 163 19th October do extract. 11. Same to Same, 164 23d do do. a. Same to Baron Pasquier, 22d do do copy. 12. Same to Mr. Adams, 172 1st February, 1821, extract. 13. Baron do Neuvillc to same, 23d do do do. 14. Mr Gallatin to same, 174 29th March do do. 15. Mr. Adams to Baron dc Neuville, do do do copy. 16. Baron de Neuvillc to Mr. Adams, 30th do do trans. 17. Same to same, 15th May do do. 18. Mr. Adams to Baron de Neuville, 15th June do copy. 19- Baron de Neuville to Mr. Adams, 30th do do trans. 20. Same to same, 15th October do do. 21. Mr. Gallatin to same, 233 24th September, 1822, extract. 22. Same to same, 236 13th November, do do. a. M. de Villele to Mr. Gallatin, 6th do do trans. 6. Mr. Gallatin to M. dcVillele, 12th do do copy. 23. Same to Mr. Adams, 237 19th do do do. rt. M. de Villele lo Mr. Gallatin, 15th do do trans. 24. Mr. Gallatin to Mr. Adams, 241 5th January, 1823, copy. 25. Same to same, 250 27th Febiuary, do do. a. Same to Viscount de Chateaubriand, 27th do do do. 26. Mr. Brown to Mr. Adams, 17 29th November, 1824, do. LSI] No. 1. Mr. Hyde de J\reuville to Mr. Mams, dated Dec. 15, 1817. [translation.] Sir: The Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of His Most Christian Majesty has received reiterated orders to ascer- tain the truth of the statement made by several masters' of merchant ships, affirming that Frencii vessels are not treated, in the ports of Louisiana, upon the footing of the most favored nations. Upon in- vestigation, it not only appears that such is actually the case, but the undersigned has even found that sevei-al ])rotests had been lodged in vain with the local authorities, against this manifest infraction of the 8th article of the Louisiana Treaty. He is well assured that this must have been the mere consequence of error, or of incorrect interpretation given, on the spot, to a chaise whicii is absolute and unconditional by its own tci-ms, ami which can neither be limited nor modified, being the essential unlimited condition of a contract of cession, can neither be subject to limitation nor to any modification whatever. The Min- ister of His Most Christia)i Majesty persuades himself, that it will suffice thus to call the attention of the Federal Government to this af- fair, inoi'der to obtain from its justice the reparation of an injury so very prejudicial to French commerce. He, tiierefore, request's of the Secretary of State that this his representation, made by order of his Court, be submitted as soon as possible to the President, in order that His Excellency may be pleased to issue orders to such effect that in future the 8th article of the treaty of 1803, between France and the United States receive its entire execution, and that the advantages granted to Great Britain in all the ports of the United States, be se- cured to France in those of Louisiana. The principle of justice here claimed cannot be denied, and ijiust necessarily insure the reimburse- ment of the duties which have been unjustifiably levied upon French vessels in New-Orleans. The undersigned Minister expects, with entire confidence, the decision of the I'resident; of which he requests the Secretary of State will enable him to inform his court as soon as possible: The Government of His Majesty desires, as soon as pos- sible, to quiet the commerce of France, with regard to proceedings so contrary to its interests, and to the true spirit of the Louisiana Treaty. The undersigned has the honor, &c. G. HYDE DE NEUllLLE. 8 [ 91 1 No. 2. Mr. Mams to Mr. Ilijde De JK'euville' Department of State, December 25,1^X7. The undersigned. Secretary of State has received and laid before the President, the note which lie had the honor of receiving from the Envoy Extraoidinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of France, complaining that French vessels are not, conformably to the 8th article of the treaty of cession of Louisiana, treated in the ports of that state, upon the footing of tlie most favored nation; and claim- ing, as a right, dcducible from the same article, that French vessels should in future enjoy, in the ports of Louisiana, all the advantages granted to the English nation in all the ports of the Union. The undersigned is instructed to say, that the v essels of France are treated in the ports of Louisiana, ujmn the fooling of the most favor- ed nation; and that neither the English nor any other foreign nution, enjoys gratuitous advantage there which is not equally cnjovcd by France. But English ves^sels, by virtue of a conditional compact, are admitted into the ports of the United States, including those of Louisiana, upon payment of the same duties as the vessels of the Uni- ted States. The cojidition upon which Ihey enjoy tliis advantage is, that the vessels of the United States shall be admitted into the ports of Great Britain, upon payment of the same duties as arc there paid by British vessels. The 8th article of the treaty of cession, stipulates that the ships of France shall be treated upon the footing of the most favored nations in the ports of the ceded territory; but it docs not say. and cannot be understood to mean, tiiat France should enjoy as a free gift, that which is conceded to other nations for a full equivalent. It is obvious, that, if French vessels should be admitted into the ports of Louisiana, upon payment of the same duties as the vessels of the United States, they would be treated, not upon the footing of the most favored nation, according to the article in question, but upon a footing more favored than any olhcr nation; since other nations, with the exception of England, pay higher tonnage duties, and the exemp- tion of English vcs:-:ds is not a fice gift, but a purcliasc, at a fair and equal price. It is true, that the terms of the 8th article are positive and uncon- ditional; but it will readily be perceived, that the condition, though not expresed in the article, is inherent in the advantage claimed un- der it. If British vessels enjoyed in the ports of Louisiana any gra- tuitous favor, undoubtedly, French vessels would, by the terms of the article, be entitled to the same. A more extensive construction cannot he given to t!ie article, con- sistently with the Constilulionof the United States, which declares that •♦all duties, imposts, and excises, shail be uniform throughout the United States; and that no preference shall be given by any regula- tion of comir.erce or revenue,, to the j)orts of one state over those of another." C9l3 9 It would be incompatible with other articles of the treaty of cession itself, one of which cedes the territory to the United States *'in full sovereignty,'* and another declares that its ''inhabitants shall be in- coipo'afed in the union of the United States, and be admitted as soon as possible, according to the principles of the Federal Constitu- tion, to the enjoyment of all the rights, advantages and immunities of citizens of the United States." If France could claim /orerfr, ad- vantages in tlie ports of Louisiana, whic h could be denied to her in the other poits of the United States, she would have ceded to the Uni- ted States, not the full, but an imperfect sovereignty, and if France could claim admission for her vessels forever, into the ports of Lou- isiana, upon the payment of duties not uniform with those which they must pay in the other poi'ts of the United States, it would have been impossible to have admitted the inhabitants of Louisiana, according to the principles of the Federal Cotistitution, to the enjoyment of all the rights, advantages, and immunities, of citizens of the United States. The undersigned is happy to be authorized, in concluding this notCp to add, that the (iovernment of the United States is w illing to extend to France, not only in the poi-ts of Louisiana, but in those of all the United Slates, every advantage enjoyed by the vessels of Great Bri- tain, upon tlic fair and just equivalent of reciprocity; and that, in the mean time, the vessels of France shall be treated in all the ports of the United States, including Louisiana, on the footing of the most favored nation^ enjoying gratuitously every favor indulged gratuitously to others; and every conditional favor upon the reciprocation of the Same to vessels of the United States in France. He prays the Minister of France to accept the assurances of his very dKtinguished consideration. JOHN QUINCY ADAMS. No. 3. Jilr. dt JVeuville to Mr. Mams, [transiation.] Washington, I6th June, 1818 Sir: I have had the honor of receiving your note in answer to mine of the 15th December last, concerning the non-exeeution af the 8th article of the Louisiana treaty. I took care duly to communicate the proposal made by the Federal Government, to extend to France, not only in the ports of Louisiana, but even in all those of the United States, the advantages therein en- joyed by British vessels on a footing of absolute reciprocity. His Majesty is ever disposed not to neglect any thing that can tend to rivet the bonds of friendship of the two countries, and to improve 2 10 [91] their commercial intercourse, and will, no doubt, examine this pro- posal with very ])articulai' attention. In the mean time, as it would be neither Just nor proper, that the execution of tlie clauses of a contract already made and completely concluded, sliould be d;^pendent on an arrangement, which, as yet, is (jnly iji contemplation- and, as the enjoyment of a perjsetual uncon- ditional right, sliould never in any ( ase be blended with reciprocal advantages, or concessions which time annuls, and which accidental causes may modify or destroy; as P'rance claims nothing but what siie knows is due to her, and as she is well persuaded that the Fed- eral Government will never detjy what it is conscious of owing; there is much j-eason to hope thai the following observations will suf- fice to establish our right, and thus remove every obstacle to its free enjoyment. I will add, that fresh ordei-s from His Majesty make it my duty to neglect no means of obtaining, as soon as possible, this act, whose accompiislnnent must be expected from mature deliberation on the question, and is wari'anted by the acknowledged equity of the Federal Government. You have stated, sir, that French vessels are treated in the ports of Louisiana upon the footing of the most favored nation; and that no for- eiga natwn et'Joys there amj gratuitous advantage xvhichds not equally enjoyed by France. Yon add, sir, that, if British vessels are allowed in the ports of the United States, certain advantages which American ves- sels likewise enjoy in the ports of Great Britain, it is by virtue of a con- ditional conipaci founded oti reciprocity of advantages. Finally, after recalling the 8th article which stipulates expressly, that, in future, and for ever, French vessels shall be treated upon the footing of the most favored nation, in the ports of the ceded territory: you observe that the article does 7iot say, ajd that it could not be iinder- stood to mean, that France should enjoy as a free gift, that which is con^ ceded to other nations for a full e([uivalent. 1 siiall, in tiic tirsfc place, have the !)onor to observe, that France asks not for a. free gift: she claims the enjoyment of a right, which it is not even necessary for her to acquire, since it proceeds from herself, being a i'ight which, v hen slie consented to dispose of Loui- siana, she had power to reserve for the interest of her trade, and the actual reservation of which is established, not implicitly, but in the most precise and formal terms, by the 8tli article of the Louisiana treaty. France. I repeat it, asks no free gift, since the territory ceded is the e({nivalent already paid by her for all the clauses, charges, and conditions, executed, or which remain to be fulfilled, by the United States; and which, principally, consist in the 7th and 8th articles of the Treaty, and 1st of the ConveJition. If the 8th article of the Louisiana Treaty had no other object but that of securing to France a conditional advantage in the ports ot Louisiana; if such had been the true spirit of this clause, and final- ly, if the American negotiators had been firmly convinced that this resci'vation of the Frencli Govei-iiment was not absolute, but was [91] 11 al f iiw. P nmtt.marv reciprocal concessions wliich occur in T"H "^T^^'^T^^^^ Commerce; it is likely that no almost all iieaties oi .^m article, so as absolutely ,tead of so iirecsc » J-'M' ^';-''' j", ^^|, „„ treaties between France ""Tr^f-uiterS .el ; cind on «1- .■edi-.-ocity is p.,si.ively ^^ re-established betNveen the t^vo nationsr observed bv And furthermore, how shall we reconc. e t e « ence ob erveU^^^^ the Senate in 1803, respecting th.s »''!^""'^'^ ^^^^VCs^^ H>01, secured to France, xvith ^I'e positive retusalo the sa.ne^^^^^^^^^ ^ to ratify a convention fo""*^'^^,"V;^,^'ir^' /^^^^^^ the express condition that it should be united toj^'Y/; ^^J^'j^" j , j,, ' 'rh^ natural inference, the only e^l^-n. m« o al tj-, - hat,^^ 1801, the question was on a ^""^^'^f " "^^^^^^f'saTe o^r cession, .nerce, while, in '^'Xil^lk^lnt .^^^^^^^^^ t. admit the ap- which instruments are ot ^","'"^'^"^ ^ "^' „„,„„„. ,,or can it be sun- plication of similar princples 2;;\^,:;",7rrsoVrad forgotten lo posed that the "<-S» '^^^'^^J, '^J "^^L^^^^ Hiention that the c.t.zens of the Uxo "^^^^ f^^f ^,^.^^ treated, each, in the ports o the ,^tl'C^ " o"^''«^^ ^„, the ge- ^^ored nations, since this principle o »;f <^P;"j^ f Jj^^ ^ slnl qua L ncral basis, but was even, in almost cxeiy instance, of preceding commercial conventions. ^^^^^ ^^ hut the negotiators f t''!^ '^f >.f ,^',',i;, Ja7o navigating inte- gers not commissioned o ,^ f ^^.^ ';"3\";'^^ to make a con- rests of the two countries. an« ^ ^^^'^ ;^,^,o,ta,.t, from the value of tract of sale or cession, which, ''»^^^^«» '";f ' ^^,^' conveyance be- the object ceded, was not ^''^ ^^^^-'^"Sde rulerof construct^^ and tween individuals, to certain and inva able '^^^^ j^„, (,ous interpretation. A contract ot S'^'e «(^"" f ^ ^"^ ^„^ ,ty is bound entendu) it is a plain simple ^»'^-f,^ '"J,X \y to eceive it, on cer- to deliver a certain property, and ^''^ "^''^ .^^' J^, '" ' tain charges and conditions more °«- ^^'^ ' ^= ^^I ',\ed otherwise than Those clauses and conditions cannot be inte^^^^^^^^^ the contract; according to the terms in which they are expiessea 12 [91] nor can they be annulled or modified except by the consent of both parties. Their entire execution is, indeed, so rigorously binding, that it nlonc may be said finally to seal the transaction. But the article would appear to you, sir. to be, in this, its only natural construction, inconsistent with the constitution, which declares that nil duties, hn- posts. and excises, shall be uniform throughout the United States- It would seem to me that this clause of the constitution has no other reference than to the interior administration of tlie country, and that it cannot be proper to consider, in the light of a mere tax or impost, that which is an express condition of the sale or cession of a territory, afid is one of the clauses of a treaty which itself becomes a law of the United States. You express an opinion, sir, that the 8th article, if interpreted ac- cording to its grammatical and literal sense, r(;ould be iucompntihle tvith another article of the same treaty which cedes the territory to the United States in fjill sovereignty, arguing that, if France could claim for- ever advantages in the ports of Louisiana, -which could be denied to her in the other ports of the United States, she would have ceded to the United States not the full, but an imperfect sovereignty. Allow me to observe, that this last point of the argument is answer- ed by your own decision, admitting that, if British vessels enjoyed, in the ports of Louisiana, any grattdtous favor, undoubtedly French vessels would, by the terms of the treaty , be entitled to the same. This admits the possibility of an imperfect sovereignty, and sup- poses an instance in which France might be entitled to claim, in the ports of Louisiana* a favor which could be denied her in the other ports of the United States. Moreover, if the United States have, by the constitution, a right to grant to other nations gratuitous favors in their ports, it follows, from your own interpretation of the perpetual reservation made by France, that, in order to deprive her of the right so reserved, and to avoid rendering, theieby. the sovereignty of this republic imperfect, the Federal Government must not grant to other nations any gratui- tous concessions in the territory ceded by France, though it should be found expedient sOto do, and advantageous to their commercial interest and policy. In other words, the Federal Government, by consenting to the eighth article, would have deprived itself of a real right of sove- reignty. In the preceding hypothesis, the ditbculty is merely eluded and not removed. The right is not the less unqualified, and consent- ed to forever. But will it be said the constitution allows no preferences among the different states; they arc all, by the federal compact, subject to the same charges, and are to enjoy the same privileges. It would appear to me, sir, that this perfect uniformity is applicable only to a state when it has once become a state. The regulations made for the family cannot be meant to extend beyond its circle; and tlielaw which established such regulations never can have blended the circumstan- ces pre existent to the admission of a new member (much less the ve- ry conditions of admission) with the rights, charges, and privileges, [91] 13 which arc the consequence springing therefrom: thus did Congress judge: to thcin it appeared that the instrument of sale or cession of Louisiana had no analogy to a commercial regulation, or to a distribu- ti«)n of taxes; and they achnitted, without discussion, the 7th and 8th articles of the treaty, because, if the constitution does not allow that a territory, when once admitted into this Union, be marked by any dis- tinct charges or advantages, it does not) on that account, prevent the fulfilment of clauses exacted and consented to as conditions of its ad- mission. In all this there is rieither exception nor preference; it is thft mere and simple execution of a contract freely and lawfully entered into. But the thiid article says, that the inhabitants of the ceded ter- ritory shall be incorporate*! into the Union, and admitted, as soon as possible, to the enjoyment of all the advaritages and immunities of citi- zens of the United States. This is true, and such, no doubt, was the intention of the contiact- ing parties. Thi-y expressly agreed, that this admission should take place as soon as possible; but most assuredly it was meant that tliis should be done in confoi-mity with the clauses and conditions mention- «d in the treaty; and if the 8th ai'ticle could have been considei-ed as an obstacle to tlie execution of tiie third article, it would eriually hate been so thought of the 7th; this article was, however, never con- tested it even received, during the twelve years of its diri'ation, or should have received, its full and entire opei-ation by virtue of the rcgirlating act of Cotrgress. of tlie 24tli of I*>briiar'y, 1804. France and Si)ain still enjoyed in 1815, in Louisiana, the rights atrd privileges secured by the 7th article, which rights, by the very terms of the treaty, never can be gr-anted to any other nation. Frat>ce and S{)ain wei-e irr tire full enjoyment of these exclusive rights and pri- vileges in 1815: and yet, in 1812. the stipulations of the 3d article was fulfilled, the territoi'y of Louisiana was admitted as a state into the Federal body, and this new state was received without restrictiorr, on an equal footing with the original states, in all I'cspects whatever. If. therefore, there wcr-e at this day any contradiction between the 5d and 8th articles, how could Congr-ess, in 1812, surmount the ob- jection ar'ising fr'om the murh stronger inconsistency, whicir, on this supposition, must have existed between the 3d and 7th articles? VVhen Congi'ess made Lorrisiana a member of the Union, before the expiration of the 12 years, it was judged that such a compliance with the conditions of a treaty, was by no means imcompatible with the exercise of the full and entire rights of sovereignty. Perhaps it may be answered, that the 7th ai'ticle gr-anted only temporary privi- leges, and that the eighth article has no term fixed to it. To me, it appears that the vvords/orerer, change nothing but the duration of the pi'ivilege, without, in the least degr-ee, altering the natur-e of the ques- tion. Under a constitutional system, nothing can be done, oidei'ed, or consented to, that would infr'inge, even but for a limited term, the established laws of the counti-y. All the transactions of Governments must be legal. If, ther-efore, the pr-ovisionsof the Constitutiorr which i-egulate the existence of a state after its admission, were applicable 14 [9t] to the conditions on which it is to be admitted, it would, in such case, have been no less impossible in 1812, than at the present day, to grant to the inhabitants of Louisiana the rights, privileges, and im- munities, of citizens of the United States, since, on that supposition, they must, in common with the other states, have had a right to make France and Spain pay, in tiicir ports, higher tonnage duties than those paid by the citizens of the United States: and since the Federal Government had no right, at that time, to grant, in the ports of the ceded teriitory, to other nations, the privileges therein secured to France and to Spain. France did intend to cede the territory of Louisiana to tJje United States forever, and in full sovereignty: but sovereignty does not consist in tlic enjoyment of every right and pri- vilege: it lies in the pre-eminent important authority to enforce their observance. When the French Government ceded Louisiana, it ceased to be the sovereign of the country, but it did not cease to liold property liierein, since it reserved a right or privilege: for, a pri' i- lege acquired or reserved, is property as sacred as an annuity, as a rent chaige, or any other. France, therefore, claims only the enjoyment of what is her pro- perty; giving her possession of this lawful right far from rendering the sovereignty of the United States imperfect, would seem, in a measure, only to make it more complete, since it is certain that the rigiit claimed by France, is one of the essential conditions of the ces- sion made by her of that sovereignty. It may, perhaps, he answer- ed, that there is some diflference between the contracts of nations with other nations, and a sale made by one individual to another. 1 see very little. 1 confess, on the score of equity, the rules of interpretation being in all cases alike applicable to every human transaction. By the law of nations, it is an invariable rule that treaties or contracts, of whatsoever nature, should be understood according to the force and meaning oftheir expressionsj and nothing surely can be more uncon- ditional or more clearly expressed than the following clause: "In future, and forever, after the expiration of the 12 years, French ves- sels shall be treated upon the footing of the most favored nations in the ports of the said territory." In future and forever are expressions free from all ambiguity. Jlfter the expiration of the 12 years, these words prove, that the treatment or privilege secured by the 8th ar- ticle, IS to follow without condition or limitation of time. That of the 7th article, French vessels shall be treated, does not mean may be treated: but that they shall undoubtedly and positively be treated upon the footing of the most favored nation. And it makes no dif- ference whether that treatment be the consequence of a gratuitous or of a conditional concession; the article has no restriction; it expressly states, French vessels shall be treated upon the footing of the [most] favored nations- The consequence is, that French vessels are, with- out cojidition, to be treated, in the ports of Louisiana, upon the foot- ing of tlie vessels of Great Britain, which is at this time the most favored nation. 1 tiiiiik 1 have pioved, sir, that to demand an equi- valent of France, because England has given one, would, in a mea- [91] 15 sure, be requiiing her to purchase what is already her own property, and obliging her to pay twice for the same thing. I think I have also proved, that the sovereignty of the United States is, and will still remain, entire and perfect, such as it was ceded by the treaty of 180 3; although France be put into possession of that light, which is secured lo her in future and forever. I could cite many examples of analogous privileges, which never were con- sidei'ed as impairing the sovereignty of nations. But it appears to me, that the best of all arguments that can be addressed to tlie equi" ty and honest feelings of ihe American (iovernment, is, that France claims only her lawful due and right; that the title establishing it is woidcd in terms of such force and precision, as must suffice to re- move every doubt, and absolutely to solve the question. The claim which I have the honor to address to you, sir, being en- tirely dependent on the Executive authority, I cannot but hope, I shall soon have to inform my Court, that the President has been pleased to issue such orders as will secure in futuie the execution of tiie 8th article of the Louisiana Treaty, and the immediate reimburse- ment of the duties which have been unjustifiably levied to this day. I have the honor to be, 6i.c. G. HYDE DE NEUVILLE. No. 4. Jlr. Roth, Charge (TJiffaires of France, to the Secretary of State. trans latiox. Legation of France to the United States, Washington, July 19, 1820. Sir: I learn hy a letter from his Majesty's Consul at New Or- leans, dated 1 5th June, the time when the law. establishing a new duty of tonnage upon French ships, came to be known in that city, that the officers of the Custom House there appeared to be of opinion that this law ought to be put into execution in Louisiana, as well as in the other parts of the Union, because it made no exception; and that these agcr.ts of the j)u')lic revenue made their dispositions ac- cordingly. The law of 15th May, in question, does, in fact, point out no exception, and even has these words, '■ any act to the contrary notwithstanding." But this disposition, implying an abrogation of anterior laws be- longing to the duty of the state, cannot be applied to treaties and con- tracts of nation with natioti, which are without the reach of interior legislation, and form another distinct law, which can only be modified by mutual consent by new treaties between the contracting parties. 14k C^l J Tim m fMtttstrmta^^ aaii %wA\'t^%\4 m afl tie fn*^e a^J '4^ ji«fif6*rq Ficark f6^ r niaw fiaKVf DiMfli M a tiate <3^ ^fiifi' 91 i^aaraHifiei br e*«r aW ev:. ^,^ is iMa n^»^ 3H* iS>*n ^ 1i^ aScos aC i Ifr f4' "f -» f ^^^^L^^.Y^f,",;; special instructions for requiring my »"terl.rence 1 le new law had only arrived in Louisiana at the moment I was written to. 1 must thin\ hit there was a mistake, or a want of sufficient jr'struct.ons m be opinion then expressed by the officers of the customs. Befo e answering his Majesty's Consul, upon the conduct wh.ch he ought to pursuer I have the honor of praying you to be pleased to .nlorm meTa^oint of such imFK>rtancc, in tlie relations and t.es existing between France and the United States. I have tbe honor to offer you, Sir, the respectful assurance of my high consideration. ROTH Cliargt d'affaires, ad Inttrim. No. 5. Extract Of aUtter, Xo. 155, from Mr. Galiatm r^mmumcattn;;^'^ stance 'of a conversation icitk M. Pasquier,j to Mr. Adam,, dated 31 Julyf 1820. .* \n allusion was made in the course of tbe conference, to the claim of the French, to be treated, without any erpivalent, at New Orleans, in tbe same manner as the British now are. I did not know of thi= difficulty till it was occasionally mentioned m couver8at4on by Mr. Fa-quier. Tbe pretension appe;ir5 Vt me altogether uctenable; but I would have wished to know what answer has bef-n given at AVashington, to the reclamations ^ Minister, and what are the President's intentions on . - , No. •:>. « Tbe lett«- ^tich I had tl»e boaor of addrcssiiig \f) yoa on the iifiiof lastnwnth. wa5ifltei4>dtorepi*3ertlliattte lawoflS^i May 1 5-^ 3, rtick eslabiisbed epon Freacb ^hips, » the Port« rf tie L nited SUi^ a te»ase d«ty dififer«t fro. «*»at wikii ^ifd jgCD other femes sypsTS.!* a«t be applkabk to Fwcch Te«eteMlbeF»rte <*f 18 [91] liouisiana, agreeably to the 8th article of the Treaty of cession, whicli runs thus: "Article 8. In future and forever, after the expiration of the twelve yearri, French sliips shall be treated upon the footing of the most fa- voured Jiation in the Ports above mentioned." I ought to confine myself to the citation of the text, upon a con- dition so clearly, so positively expressed, in a special clause of a Treaty of cession, of which all the cornlitions together, and each of them in particular, areequally obligatory and necessai-y to the valid- ity of the contract. 1 have not had tlie honor of being informed of the measures which the Federal Government has taken to enforce, in this point, the execution of the Treaty of cession, agreeably to the obliga- tions contracted by the Treaty itself, notwithstanding every law to the contrary. This caie of protection belongs to the power which has made tlie engagement. As regards the King's Legation, i have done, what was its duty for the preservation of rights, by demanding that tliesc measures should be taken, and by prescribing to his Ma- jesty's consul at New Orleans, who expected an answer, to protest against every exaction which might be made, by the Custom House, from French vessels beyond what is received from ships belonging to the most favoured nations, but not to go on, if his protest remain without effect, till it had been referred to the authority which signs and ^maintains the Treaties. In this I have only conformed to the instructions formerly adressed in a similar case concerning the same 8t!i article of the Treaty of cession of Louisiana." No. 7. Extract of a letter from Mr. Gallatin, to Mr. Fauquier, dated I5th Jlngust, 1820. '« I have in tliis letter, confined myself to that subject which, from the present situation of the commercial relations of the two countries, requires the most immediate attention. But I must at once state that, having no other knowledge of the difficulties in the execution of the 8th aiticle of the Louisiana convention, than what is derived from your Excellency, and having received no communication what- ever on that subject from my Government, it is not in my power to discuss it at this time.'* No. 8. Extract of a letter, JSl). 24, from Mr. Adams to Mr. Gallatin^ dated SLAth August, 1820. ♦< I had the honor of receiving, yesterday, your despatches. No. t48, 149, and 150, with their enclosures. The preceding numbers L9i3 19 aad been received befoi-e. T!ie last of your letters being dated tbe 6th of July, 1 am in liopes that Mr. Hyde de Neuville, who sailed from Annapolis on the 1st or 2d of June, must have arrived in France within a very few days afterwards. He was the bearer of my letter to you. No. 20, and, by his personal observation, was aware of the friendly disposition towards France with which the act of Congress, of the 15ih of May, was passed. The President will much regret the circumstance, if it should he viewed by the French Government with a different spirit. The duty of 100 francs per ton, upon American vessels, if laid, will, probably, not have very extensive effects, ship- ments to France in American vessels having already in a great mea- sure ceased. ** It is sincerely hoped by the President, that this counteracting and countervailing system will give way to the disposition for an amica^^ ble arrangement, in a conciliatory spirit, and with a view to the in* terests of both parties. ** The temper which has been manifested in France, not only on this occasion, but in relation to all the just claims of citizens of the Unit- ed States u|)on the French Government, could not possihiy tei-minute witliout coming to a crisis; and, at the same time that a positive re- jection of the most indisputable demands of our citizens for indemnity was returned for answer to every note which you presented in their behalf, upon the untenable pretence, that the Government of the Bourbons cannot be responsible for the outrages of its immediate pre- decessors, claims e(iually untenable were advanced, and reiterated with the most tenacious perseverance, of privileges, contrary to our constitution, in the ports of Louisiana, founded on an inadmissible construction of an article in the treaty for the cession of Louisiana. ''If the construction contended for of that article by France were even correct, how can the present Government claim any advanta^rti from a com|)act made with Napoleon, after an explicit declaration, that they hold tliemselves absolved from all obligation of indciuities due to the United States and their citizens for his acts? i mention this now, because Mr. Roth informs me that he has J'rected the French Consul at Xew Orleans to ;)rofes^ against the -'^^'^"^'on of the act of the 15th of May, 1820, specially in the p(-ts of Loui.siana. There was a long and elaborate note from Mr ^^ Neuville on this subject, to which a distinct and explicit answ^ was given by me. That minister replied; but, as there was noM^g new in the shape of argument in his second note, a second anv-'^d* from me was postpon- ed, merely for tiie purpose of avoiding vitercation, where it could bo no poi^sible object to us to have the la? ^^o""*!- '^'^ pretence is, that, by the eighth article of the Louisip-ia Treaty, French vessels are to be forever treated in that provinr^ on the footmr ot the most fav(»red nation; and, on the strength r/this, they claii. to he admitted there paying no higher duties thai> English vessels. Our answer is, that English vessels pay there «o higher or other -utics than our own-~ not' by favor, but by baigain. England givs us an equivalent for this privilege; and a mpfcliant might as well laim of another, on the 20 [ 91 ] score of equal favor, that he should give a hag of cotton or a hogs- head of tobacco to Idm, because he had sold the same articles to a third, as France can claim as a gratuitous favor to her that which has been granted for valuable consideration to Great Britain. The claim to which we admit that France is entitled under that article, is te the same privilege enjoyed by England, upon her allowing the same equivalent. That is completely and exclusively our treatment of the most favored nation, and to that we are not only willing, but desirous of admitting France. But even to that she can have no pretence while she refuses to he responsible for the deeds of Napoleon. If she claims the benefit of his treaties, she must recognize the obligation of his duties, and discharge them." No. 9. Extract of a letter, JS'^o, \6l, from Mr. Gallatin to Mr. Mams, dated September 19, 1820. ** On the 12th inst. Mr. Pasquier invited me to a conference for the same day, in which, to my great astonKshmeiit, he stated, that the King's Government considered the discussion of the 8th article of the treaty, of the 30th of April, 1803, as inseparable from that of the discriminating duties, since France claimed, under that article, an exemption in Louisiana from our new tonnage duty, and generally from all those to the payment of which any other nation was not liable. I expressed my surprise at this determination, which, since I was not instructed on that subject, must, for the present, put an end to the nejjotiation. I said tlnit what rendered it more extraordinary that a qu-^stion. which iiad lieretofoie been treated apart from all others, should sow be made an obstacle to the adjustment of other difficulties, affecting v\\ the commercial relations of the two countries, was the silence whici. jj^d, at first, been preserved by France on that point. The first con vt,tio,i between the United States and Great Britain, made in pursuan^ of the act of Congress of March, 1815, and by which the discrimiintjpg duties were reciprocally abolished on both sides, would have exj;,.ed in 1819. It was renewed for ten years in the year 1818, witliout o,,. Government having had any notice of this claim on the |)ar\of Fiai^e, althoHgh the firs't convention had then consider the coustrucWi of the artic^, for which France contended, as altogether inadmis^ie. Mr. Pasq.jer accounted for the delay in claiming the privikgeMo which France fhonglit herself entitled, by the peculiar situation iUvhich she was pitted, during the period to \vhich I alluded, and wkh had prevented htr Government from at- [91] 21 tending to any other than her internal affairs, or her European con- cerns. As he intimatei! tiiat the detcrroination not to separate the discussion of the article in question, from that of discriminating du- ties, was taken, 1 requested him to communicate it in writing, by ansv\ering my letter of the 15th of August. This he promised to do, and 1 have the honor to enclose copies of the letter wiiich lie accord- ingly wi'ote to me on the ISth, and of my answer of the 15th instant. You will perceive that the object of this atiswer is to impress on this Government the necessity of desisting from this prej)osterous claim^ if they intend to bring the negotiation to a favorable result, either here, or at VV^ashington. *♦ Mr. Hyde de Neuville called on me on the evening of the J 5th, and expressed his regret that 1 had not succeeded in concluding, at least, a provisional arrangement, and the reluctance he felt to be obliged to leave France at this time. I told him that he must be sen- sible that the failure could not be ascribed to me. Whatever might be my view of the subject, however disposed to listen to the argu- ments which might he adduced by the French Government, it was evident, that a discussion of the 8tli article was useless, since it was evident that I could not, without special instructions, accede to the construction assumed by B'rancc. It was, therefore, equally fair, and calculated to avoid unnecessary delays, to have declared at once, what was the fact, that, not being instructed on that subject, I could not discuss it. 1 would add, that this was the only reasoii why I had avoided the discussion, that the j)reteiision set up by his Govern- ment appeared to me altogether untenable, and that little moie seem- ed necessary to repel it, than merely to state the question- This led to a desultory conversation on the nature of that claim, of which I will attempt to give the substance, although 1 am a- warc that I may not have fully understood his reasoning, and that, having already discussed the question with him, it must be more fa- miliar to you than to me. " Mr. de Neuville's arguments appeared to me to be drawn less from the natural and obvious meaning of the article, than from col- lateral circumstances. He appealed to the intentions of the negotia- tors of the treaty of 1803, which he considered as susceptible of proof, and said, that the condition, stipulated in the 8th article, wasthe;;s- sential compensation made to Francej and, in fact, the real price paid by the United States for Louisiana; and that the eighty miilions of francs were but an accessary. He mentioned the insertint!, isj some other treaty, of expressions limiting a similar provision to the sense for which we contended, and insisted that their omissinn in the article in question, was fatal to our construction of it. He alluded to a supposed inconsistency of the article with the constitution of t!ie United States, which, if it rendered it impossible for us to comply with that provision of the ti-eaty. made it necessary that v.e should, in lieu of it, make some other concession or compensation acceptable to France. ** This last argument was not perfectly inleliigible to me, and it might have been inferred from it, that the claim was set up only for 22 [91] tlie purpose of obtaining concessions in other respects. I observed, that any dilHculty arising from a supposed inconsistency between our Constitution and the Louisiana treaty, was a concern of our own; that I did not perceive any, as the Constitution of the United States became applicable to Louisiana, subject to any exception to be found in the instrument by which we had acquired that territory; and that, in point of fact, the 7th article of the treaty had, during twelve years, been carried into effect without any difficulty, al- though it gave to France and Spain, privileges at New Orleans, which they enjoyed in no other port of the United States. We could not at this time, make a new treaty to that effect. I saw nothing that prevented the execution of that of 1803, according to its strict construction, which the United States could not at present, even if they were so disposed, enlarge in favor of France. '* Being unacquainted with the facts from which Mr. Hyde de Neu- ville inferred the intentions of the negotiators, 1 could form no opinion on that point; but I insisted, that whatever they might have been, it was not by these that the treaty must be construed; and that the two nations were bound by tiic expressions, and only by the expressions, used in the sevea^al articles, such as they had been ratified by the su- preme authorities on both sides. As to any explanatory w^ords which might have been used in some other treaty, whatever their effect might be on that treaty, tlieir omission could not alter the obvious meaning of the 8th article of that by which the United States had acquired Louisiana; and the only question was, w hat w as that mean- ing? The article simply provided, that French vessels should forever be treated upoji the footing of the most favored nations in the ports of Louisiana. Now there were not, properly speaking, any most favored nations in the United States. *' Congress had, by a general law. proposed to all the nations with ^vhom they had any commerce, a mutual re])eal of discriminating du- ties. Every nation might have accepted that proposal, and it was in the power of France to avail herself of it whenever she pleased." " The plan had been carried into effect with sevei'al powers, either by treaty stipulations, as was the case with Gieat Britain and Sweden, or only bj'an understanding, or mere municipal regulations, as in the Ci:" J, of the Netherlands and of the free towns of Germany. In every case, the rej)eal was mutual, and the consequence of the general offer made by the United States. In every case, the vessels of the nation which France now considered as more favored than herself, were put, in all the ports of the United States, including those of Louisiana, on the same footing as American vessels, on the express and reciprocal condition that American vessels should, in the ports of that nation, be treated on the same footing as indigenous vessels. "What France claimed was, to enjoy the privilege without fulfilling the condition on which it was granted; that her vessels should be treated, in Louisiana, on the same footing as xVmerican vessels, whilst American vessels coming from Louisiana should, in her ])orts, continue to be sub ject to any discriminating duties she might be pleased to impose. She asked. [91] 22 in fact, to be treated not as favorably, but more favorably than the nations she called most favored. The stipulation to place a country on the footing of the most favored nations necessarily meant, that, if a privilege was granted to a third nation for an equivalent, that equiva- lent must be given by the country which claimed the same privilege by virtue of such stipulation. A different construction implied a con- tradiction with the terms of the stipulation. It was true, I allowed, that there were cases in which a difficulty might arise, that is to say, if a privilege was granted by the United States to a third nation, in exchange for some favor or equivalent of a different nature from tlie privilege granted, and which France could specifically give. But this was not the present case: not only France could give the equivalent, but this equivalent was of the same nature with the piivilege granted, and both were so intimately connected, that one could not be sej)arated from the other. Tiie moment an Ame- rican vessel sliould cease to be treated, in the ports of Great Britain or of the Netlierlands, as a British or Dutcli vessel, the British or Dutch vessels, as the case might be, would at once cease to be treated as American vessels in the ports of the United States. I have found, since my conversation w ith Mr. Hyde de Neuville, that the treaty to which he alluded was tliat of commerce between the United States and France of the 6th February, 1778: by the 2d article of which, it is agreed, that neither of the contracting parties shall grant any par- ticular favor to other nations, in respect of commerce and navi- gation, which shall not become common to the other party icho shall enjoij the same favor grahdtouslij. if the concession xvas gratnifnus, or on allowing the same compensation, if the concession was conditional. These last words, inserted for greater caution, define what was meant by that stipulation: and if any inference was to be drawn from them, it would be, that the two nations had, in their first treaty, thought proper to state explicitly what they intended by the clause, of being placed on the footing of other (or most favored) nations, and that this explanation having once been given, the same construction must ever after be given to clauses of a similar nature, \\ ithout its being neces- sary to repeat these explanatory words. And they have been accord- ingly omitted in every subsequent commeicial arrangement between the two countries, as well in the 6th article of the convention of the 30th September, 1 800, as in the 8th article of the Louisiana treaty. But these words are mere surplusage; the clause would have precisely the same meaning without as with them; and their omission in an ar- ticle of a subsequent treaty, cannot, as I had observed to Mr. de Neu- ville, alter the only construction of which that article is susceptible. " In answer to tlie objection that the article would, according t® our construction, be of no value to France, I answered generally that it would fulfil its avowed object, which was to enable her to trade at all times to New Orleans, on terms not more, but as advantageous, as any other nation. It might be our interest to agree to a mutual repeal of discriminating duties, ar to any other mutual commercial privilege witli JJngland or some other nation, and not with France. 24 [ 91 ] But if we had made such an agreement, France had a right, on fulfil- ing the reciprocal condition, to claim the same privilege in Louisiana, however inconvenient that might be to us. We might be cotnpcUed, by an unsuccessful war, or induced by political considerations, to grant some gratuitous favor to a third nation: and France would, in that case, immediately participate gratuitously in Louisiana, in tlie same favor, although we had no motive for granting it to lier. The article did confer substantial and peimanent advantages on her, with- out recurring to tlie construction for which she contended." No. 9.— «. Baron Pasquier to Mr. Gallatin. [translation.] Paris, Sq)temher 13, 1820. Sir: I have submitted to the King the letter which you did me the honor to write to me on the 15th of last month, in answer to my note of tlic 31st of the month preceding; I have since recounted to His Ma- jesty tiie conference w hich I had with you upon the object of that cor- resp,»ndcnce. His Majesty being informed, sir, of the impossibility of your entering upon an explanation of the difiiculty which exists in America, relative to the execution of the 8th article of the Treaty of 3 0th April, 1803; and judging that the settlement of that difficulty cannot be separated from the negotiation of an ai-rangement of the respective navigation of the tw o states, considering that the article above mentioned secures special advantages to the French flag, in the ports of Louisiana, is resolved to send, with the greatest possible promptitude, to America, his minister, to be near the Federal Govern- inent. He has thought, and his opinion in that has been in accord- ance with your own, that it was a means of accelerating the negotia- tion — a thing the more desirable, because the present state can only, by being prolonged, be injurious to the well known interests of both coun- tries. I regret, sir, that this circumstance deprives me of the advantage of pursuing, directly, with you, an affair of that importance in w hich I am happy to believe, that your superior information, and your spirit of conciliation, would have afforded all desirable facilities. Accept the assurances of the high consideration with wliich 1 have the honor to be. Sir, your most humble and most obed't servant, PASQUIER. [ 91 3 25 No. 9.—b. Mr. Gallatin to Mr. Pasquier. Paris, \ 5th September, 1820. Sir: I liad the honor to receive your Excellency's letter of the 13th inst. by which you inform me that, since I am without instructions respecting tlie 8th article of the treaty of the 30th of April, 1803r it lias been determined that His Majesty's Minister to the United States should depart as soon as possible for America. Althougli I believe that a transfer of the negotiation to America, may, under existing circumstances, accelerate a definitive result, your Excellency will be pleased to recollect that, so far from having in any manner countenanced an expectation tinit the Government of the Unit- ed States would accede to the construction put by that of France, on the 8th article of the Louisiana treaty, I have expressed a contrary opinion. I have not been led to tliat conclusion, merely because I consider that construction as altogether untenable. Your Excellency has in- formed me that the subject had already been discussed, in writing, at AVashington, between His Majesty's Minister and the Secretary of State of the United States, who had argued against the construction contended for in France. Notwithstanding this discussion, the Secretary of State has not eveu alluded to that subject in the instructions which he has subsequently given to me in relation to an arrangement of the commercial relations of the two countries, and to an adjustment of the difficulties which have arisen in that respect. I am thence irresistibly led lo infer, that, after a thorough investigation, the view taken of the article by the Guvei-nment of the United States, essentially differs from that in which it is considered hy His Majesty's Government. These observations were necessary, on account of my own respon- sibility; but I ])ray your Excellency to ascribe them principally to my earnest desire that the negotiation in which I have not been for- tunate enough to succeed, may, at Washington, be attended with a fa- yorabl« result. I request vour Excellency to accept, &c. ALBERT GALLATIN. No. 10. Extract of a letter, JVo. 163, from Mr. Gallatin to Mr. Mams, dated I9th October, 1820. " From conversations with him (Mr. de Neuville) and with the Duke of Richelieu, I am induced to believe that this Governmeut refused to 4 26 C 91 ] separate in the negotiation, the question relative to the Louisiana treaty from that of discriminating duties, less with a view to insist on their construction of the treaty than from the hope that the United States would make concessions in some other respect, in order to obtain ^rom France a relinquishment of her pretensions under the article in quos' tion." No. 11. Extract of a letter, A^o. 164, from Mr. Oallatin to Mr. Adams, dated 2Sd October J 1820. "I had the honor, on the 20th instant, to receive your despatch No. 24, and addressed, on the 22d, to Mr. Pasquier, the letter of which a copy is enclosed. Its object, Mr Hyde de Neuville not having then left Paris, was to induce this government to give him rational in- structions. I had the same evening a short conversation with Mr. Pasquier, in which he used conciliatory language, but said that it appeared absolutely necessary to have some explanation on the 8th article of the Louisiana treaty, and drew a distinction between our old discriminating and our new tonnage duty, with reference to the privileges granted to France by that article. 1 have thought, upon re- flection, that there might have been some foundation for that distinc- tion, so far at least as our new tonnage duty exceeded that which it was intended to countervail. But the objection was not at all made on the receipt of the act of Congress; it was thoHght more eligible to retaliate than to discuss; and France, after having laid her one hundred francs duty, has at least now no right to complain. Mr. de Neuville called on me since the receipt of your despatch. Nothing very interesting occurred in the course of the conversation. I discovered, however, that, when he had spoken of the privileges granted to France by the Lousiana treaty as being inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States, he alluded to an argument which you had used. I cannot help thinking that there has been in that respect some tpisconception on his part. It is very clear that the United States could not make, now that Louisiana is a state, a treaty containing conditions similar to those in question; but I do not perceive that the constitution prevented them from acquiring on those terms Louisiana, when a foreign colony; still less"that they could, without a compensation, be relieved from any obligation, on the ground that the constitution did not permit its performance. In your despatch to me you consider as contrary to our constitution those privileges only claimed by France, which are founded on an inad- missible construction of the treaty. And the only argument, which, it seems to me, can be drawn from the constitution, is, that the article must remain as it is, and that the Government of the I nited States cannot, even if so disposed, give to it a more extensive construction in favor of France than its literal and natural sense will admit.'* [ 91 ] 37 No. U — a. Mr, Gallatin to Baron Pasquier. Paris, 22rf October f 1820. Sir: I had the honor, in my letter of the 15th of September last, to state to your Excellency the reasons which induced me to believe that the view taken by my Government, of the 8th article of the Louisiana treaty, essentially differed from that in which it seems to have been considered by His Majesty's Government. A despatch lately received from the Department of State at Washington, leaves no doubt on that point. The Secretary of State alludes in it to the correspoadence between him and Mr. Hyde de Neuville— not for the purpose of giving me any instruction in that respect: for he does not seem to have presumed that this subject would be blended with that of the discriminating duties, or be discussed here — but in reference to a protest intended to be made by His Majesty's consul at New Orleans, against the execu- tion of the act of Congress, of the 15th of May last. And he in- forms me, in the most explicit terms, that the construction put on the article in question by Mr. Hyde de Neuville, is considered as inad- missible by the Government of the United States. I have thought it my duty to make this communicatten to your Ex- cellency, because it thence appears extremely improbable, that thovso difficulties which have produced a state of things so injurious to the commercial relations of the two countries, can be adjusted at Wash- ington, if his majesty's government shall insist on not separating that subject from the discussion of the article in question, and shall ad- here to that construction of the article which had heretofore been contended for. I request your Excellency to accept, &c. ALBERT GALLATIN. No. 12. Extract of a letter, JVb. 172, from Mr. Gallatin to Mr Mams, dated February Isf, 1821. "You will have seen by my despatch, No. 164, that I had an oppor° tunity, before Mr. de Neuville's final departure, to niake use of your letters relating to the 8th article of the Louisiana treaty, and that this Government ought not to entertain any expeptation of obtaining anyconcessions on our part iu that respect." 2^ C 91 ] I, No. 13. Extract of a letter from Baron de J^euvUle to Mr. Adams, dated Feb- ruary 23d, 1821. **A8 I am solicitous to accelerate as much as possible the progress of the negotiation, I now take the liberty of requesting an answer to the letter which I had the honor of addressing to your Department on the 16th of June, 1818, relative to the eighth article of the Louis- iana treaty. Should the Federal Government admit the interpreta- tion given to this article on the part of France, it would be un- necessary to discuss the subject any further; but if, after a thorough investigation, it should still adhere to a contrary opinion, you will think with me, sir, that it is material to both parties, to know how far they disagree on this very important article of the treaty. Both Governments having the same honest intentions, every point in dis- pute ought to be easily and speedily settled. What I ask, sir, even in its most 1" nited sense, is the right secured to France by the eighth article of the Louisiana treaty, and in what cases is our navigation to obtain its enjoyment. It would appear to me that tlie negotiators on either part, had but one and the same object, in inserting the 7th and 8th articles, which express intention was to secure forever to French vessels in the ports of the ceded territory, a real advantage over those of all other nations, and in my opinion, the very expres- sions of the article, establish in the most positive terms that intention of the negotiators." No. 14. Extract of aletterf JVo. 174, /jwh Mr. Oallatin, to Mr. Mams, dated Q9th March, 1821. *'In a conversation with one of the ministers, whom I have reasion to believe to be desirous that an arrangement should take place. She suggested a prolongation for a limited time of the privileges which had, by the Louisiana treaty, been secured during twelve years to the French commerce in that quarter, as a substitute to the provision which allows permanent advantages to it, and as a mode of concili- ating the difference of opinion of the two governments on that sub- ject. Another persoTi" of great respectability, and very friendly to the United States, alluded to the necessity of some concession on our part, which might enable this government to come to an arrangement without abandoning altogether the ground they had taken." L 91 ] 2^ No. 15. .Mr, Mlams lo Jiaron Ilijde de J\"euville, Department of State, fVasJiiiigioih^March 29, 1S21. Sir- By the 7t}i article of the treaty of 30th April, 1803, b.y which Louisiana was ceded to the United States, certain special nrivilcijes within the pcrts of the ceded territory were stipulated m favor of the ships of Biance and Spain, for the term ol twelve years; and hy the ei.^-hth article of the same treaty, it is further provided, that -in "future and forever after the expiration of the twelve years, fAc s/a>- of France shall he treated upon the footing of the most favored naiious in the port--: ahovanentioucd. In your note of the 15th .»f December, 1817, you demanded, upon the alleo-ation of this article, thiit the advantages conceded to the English nation, ia all the ports of the Union, should be secured to France in those of Louisiana. The citation ot the words of the article would of itself be an answer to the claim. Ihe stipulation of the 8th article is in its terms limited to grants of favors tu the ports of Louisiana. The seventh article had secured to French anrt Spanish vessels in those ports, peculiar privileges, to the exclusion ot the ycssels of other nations: and the object of the eighth article was evidently to provide, that, after the expiration of those twelve years, no such peculiar privileges should be granted in the same ports, to U.e vessels of any other nation, to the exclusion of those of France. 1 Ue whole scope of both the articles, is, by their letter and spirit, limited to special favors, and privileges granted in those particular ports. The claim of France, therefore, is not, and cannot be, by any con- struction of the eighth article, to enjoy in the ports "^ L""';';'l^'/^f advantages conceded to any other nation m all i/,e ports of the Umoth butonly that the ./!/;;. of France should be entitled to the special ad- vantages conceded to the ships of other nations in the ports ot Loui- ''Tere it then even true, that the English or any other nation en- ioyed, by virtue of general stipulations of treaties, advantages in al the ports of this Union, over other nations; inasmuch as they vvou d not be favors specially limited to the ports "^ Louisiana or g.a,^^^^^^^^ with any special reference to them, they could neither by the letter nor t "spi' t of the Louisiana treaty, give to France -y J-*;;-- to the special participation, in those particular ports, of a^ an ^f^^ there enjoyed only by general airangements, coextensive with the "But, hiSanswer from this Department, of the2Sd December 1 Sir to the 'note of Mr. de Neuville,of the l5ih of that n.ontn,it vn as a er- red, and it is now repeated, that tlie ships of France «'•«'' ^"^'^"^^^ the expiration of the twelve years, stipulated hy the seventh article of 80 [ 91 ] \ the treaty, uniformly have been, treated upon the same footing of the most favored nation in the ports of Louisiana. That they will continue to be so, France may be assured, not only from that sa- cred regard for the obligation of treaties, which is the undcviating principle of the American Government; but from a maxim founded in that justice, whit.h is at once the highest glory and the soundest policy of nations, that every favor granted to one, ought equally to be extended to all. It is no exception, but an exemplification of this principle, that the vessels of England, Prussia, the Netherlands, and the Hanseatic cities, pay in the ports of this Union, including those of Louisiana, no other or higher duties than the vessels of the United States. This is not a favoVf but a bargain. It was offered to all nations, by an actof Con- gress, of 3d March, 1815. Its only condition was reciprocity. It was always, and yet is, in the power of France, to secure this advan- tage to l»er vessels. It always depended upon her will alone, to abol- ish every discriminating duty, operating against her ships in the United States. Great Britain, Prussia, the Netherlands, the Han- seatic cities, accepted the proffer, and granted the equivalent. Had France seen fit also to accept it, the American Government would have hailed the acceptance, not as a favor, but as equal justice. They were far from anticipating that, instead of this, France would found* upon equal reciprocity offered to all mankind, a claim to special pri- vileges never granted to any. Special, indeed, would be the favor, which should yield to a claim of free gift to one, of that which has been sold at a fair price to another. English vessels, therefore, enjoy in the ports of Louisiana, no /a- vors, which are nut equally enjoyed by the vessels of France; nor do they enjoy any reduction of duties, which French vessels might not, at the option of their own Government, have enjoyed at any time since the 3d of March, 1815. That France did not think proper to accept the offer, is not mentioned with a view to reproach. France consult- ed what she thought to he her own interest, and, instead of reciprocity, aggravated discriminating duties to prohibition. She exercised her rights. But if, in levying those prohibitory duties, there was disfa- vor to the United States, surely, as little can it be alleged, that the extention of reciprocal advantages to all, is a grant to any one of a favor. It is observed in the reply of Mr. de Neuville, dated the 18th of June, 1818, to the letter from this Department, of the 23d of Decem- ber preceding, that France, by c\a\m\ng forever, in the ports of Lou- isiana, the full enjoyment of every advantage enjoyed by any other nation, in all the ports of the Union, as the price of equivalent advan- tages secured to the United Statas, still claims nothing gratuitous, inasmuch as the equivalent for this special advatitage to France, was already paid in the cession of Louisiana itself. This idea is not only contradicted by the whole tenor of the Louisiana Treaty, and by the special and obvious purport of the seventh aud eighth articles, but I hesitate not to aver, that, if the American Government had believed. [91] 81 those articles to be susceptible of such a construction, and had those ar- ticles alone been presented to them as the wholt price of the cession of Louisiana, they never would have accepted it upon such terms. For such terms would not only have destroyed the effect of the cession of the province in full sovereignty; they would not only have been in di- rect violation of the constitution of the United States; but they would have been a surrender of one of the hij^hest attributes of the sovereignty of this whole nation. They would jiave disabled this nation forever, from contracting with any power on earth but France, for any advan- tage in navigation, however great, and however amply compensated. It would have been little short of a stipulation never to conclude a commercial treaty with any other nation than France. For what else are commercial treaties, than the mutual concession of advantages for equivalents? And if every advantage obtained from others for equivalents, were, by a retrospective obligation of this article, to be secured, as already paid for by France, they would have been secured to her not only in the ports of Louisiana, but in those of the whole Union. Such a treaty, far from being an acrjuisition of the fult sove- reignty of Louisiana, would have been, on the part of the United States, a formal abdication of their own. From the obvious pur-port of the seventh and eiglith articles, it is appai'ent, that nerther of them was consider-ed, in any respect, as forming a part of the equivalerrt for the cession of Louisiana. The cession of Louisiana, and the equivalents paid for it, wer-e not even included in the same treaty. The cession was in one treatja^ and the equivalents in two separate conventions of the same date. The seventh and eighth articles referred to, are iir the treaty of cession, and not in the conventions of equivalents. The thr-ee instruments arc, indeed, explicitly declared to be parts of one and the same trans- action; but the ver'y ft)rm of the arr'angements adopted by the par- ties, shows their common intention to r-egulate the cession by one compact, and the equivalents given for it by others. JNor is the pr'oof, that these ar*ticles formed no part, in the estima- tion of either of the parties, of the cquivalerrts for the cession, confin- ed to this tacit evidence in the forms of the negotiatiorr. The seventh article bears upon its face the avowal of the motives by which it was dictated. Its inti'oductor-y words ar*e, "as it is r'ccipiocally advan- tageous to the commerce of Fr-ance and the United States, to encour- age the communication of both nations for a limited time, in the countr'y ceded by the present tr-eaty, until general arrangements re- lative to tire commerce of both nations may be agreed on.'* This is the motive specially assigned by the article itself, for its subsequent stipulations. Tlie reciprocal advantage to the commerce of France and the United States was the. end; the encoui'agement of their com- munications/or a limited time in the countr-y ceded, were the means. And the eighth article, following as a cor-ollary from the seventh, mer'ely stipulated that, after the twelve years of special and exclusive pri\ilege, the ships of France should be treated upon the footing of the most favored nations. In neither of the articles can a single 32 [ 91 ] word be found, importing that they were understood by either party as forming any portion of the equivalent for the cession. In the note of Mr. Hyde de Neuvilie of the l6th of June, 1818, this claim of France to enjoy for nothing and forever, in the ports of Louisiana, every advantage which the United States may concede fop a full equivalent to any other nation, in all the ports of the Union, is suppurted by a supposed peculiarity in the phraseology of the ar- ticle, by virtue of which it is claimed. To support this pretension, it is asserted, that, "in all the treaties between France and the Unit- ed States, the condition of reciprocity is mentioned in the most formal manner; that they all expressly say, that the two contracting parties shall reciprocally enjoy the favor granted to another nation, gra- tuitously if the concession is gratuitous, or by granting the same com- jiemation if the concession is cunditional.'^ The mutual stipulations of being treated as the most favored nation, is not- in all the treaties between France and the United States, ac- companied by the ejL-j)ress declaration that the favor granted to a third party shall be extended to France or the United Startes gratuitously, if the grant is gratuitous, and upon granting the same compejisation if it be conditional. Ti»is explanatory clause is expjessed, in terms, only in one treaty between the United States and France, and that •was the first treaty ever contracted between them; namely, the treaty of amity and commerce, of 6th Febrnai-y, 1778, in its second article. It has never been repeated in any of the subsequent treaties between the p^'ties. It was alluded to, adopted, and applied to consular pre- eminences, powers, authority, and privileges, by the 15th article of the consular convention of the !4th November, 1788. But in vain will any such clause be sought for in the convention of 30th Septem- ber, 1800; the words of the sixth article of which, are as follows: *' Commerce between the pai'ties shall be free. The vessels of the two nations, and their privateers, as well as their prizes, shall be treated, in their respective ports, as those of the nation the most favored, and, in general, the two parties shall enjoy, in the ports of each otiier, in regard to commerce and navigation, the privileges of the most favored nation." There is not a word in this article, nor in the whole con- vention, saying that these favors shall be enjoyed freely, if freely granted to others, or upon granting the same condition, if condition- ally granted; yet who can doubt that this was implied in the article, though not expressed? The fact, then, in regard to this argument, being directly the re- verse of t!ie statement in the note of Mr. de Neuvilie, of 16th June, 1818, it cannot escape his attention how forcibly the argument recoiJs upon itself. If from the uniform use of the explanatory clause, in all the preceding treaties, stated in the note as a fart, its omission in the Louisiana treaty could have warranted the inference that no such qualification was intended by it, with much stronger reason may it be concluded, that, as the parties had before repeatedly contracted the same engagement, at one time with, and at another without, the ex- planatory clause, but always intending the same thing, this variety C 91 ] 83 in the modes of expression, was considered by tiiem as altogether im- materia!, and that, whetliei- expressed or not, no claim to a favor en- joyed by others, could justly be advanced by virtue of any such sti- pulation, without granting the same equivalent with which the advantage had been purchased. Thei-e is tticrefore no necessity for supposing any forgetfulness on the part of tne negotiators of the treaty of cession, nor of recurring to any supposed distinction between the construction applicable to a convection of commerce and to a treaty of sale. It has been proved, that ncitiier the seventh or eighth article was ever understood by either party, as foi-ming any partof the c(piivalent for the cession; tliat the re- ciprocity of the 7th article, is expressed upon its face; and that the eighth, as a consequence from it, only stipulated that after the period of special privilege in those special ports should have expired, no such privilege, in those particular ports, should be granted to other nations, without beifig made common to the vessels ofFrance. If it be admitted, that, in a contract of sale, nothing can be understood by implication (sous entendu,) this principle could be no less fatal to the claim of France, than every other admissible rule of reason: for what implica- tion could be more violent and unnatui-aljthan that, by a stipulation to treat the shi])8 of France on the footing of those of the most favored nation in theports of Lmtisiana, the United States had disabled them- selves, forever, from purchasing a commercial advantage from any other nation, without granting it gratuitously to France? That the Senate, in 1 803, did not, formafly, object to the stipu- lations of these 7th and 8th articles, must be ascribed to its never having entered into the imagination or conception of that body, that such a claim as that now attempted to be raised fi-om it by France, was either expressed in, or to be implied from, them. Whether the special privileges, granted for twelve years to the ships of France and Spain, in those ports, were compatible with the Constitution of the United States, or with the other article of the Treaty, by which the inhabitants of the ceded territory weic to be incorporated into the Union, and admitted, according to the principles of that Consti- tution, to the enjoyment of all the rights, advantages and immuni- ties, of ( itizens of the United States, might be, and was, a question to the Senate in deliberating upon the Treaty. It was a question of construction upon a clause of the Constitr.tion; and tJiat construc- tion prevailed, with which the terms of the Treaty were reconci- lable to it, and to themselves. But whether the claim now advanced by France, is reconcilable with tlie Constitution of the United States, is no question of construction, or of implication. It is directly re- pugnant to the express provision, that the regulations of commerce and revenue, in the ports of all the States of the Union, shall be the same. The admission of the state of Louisiana, in the year 1812, on an equal footing with the original states, in all respects whatsoever, does not impair the force of this reasoning. Altliough the admission of French and Spanish vessels into their ports, for a short remnant of 5 34 C 91 ] time, upon different regulations of commerce and revenue, from those prescribed in the p)rts of all the other states in the Union, gave them a preference not sanctioned by the Constitution, and upon which the other states might, had they thought fit, have delayed the act of admission until the expiration of the twelve years; yet, as this was a condition, of which the other states miglit waive the benefit, for the sake of admitting Louisiana sooner even than rigorous obli- gation would have required, to the full enjoyment of all tlje rigiits of Atnerican citizens, this consevit of the only interested party to anticipate the maturity of the adopted child of the Union, can be considered in no other light than a friendly grant, in advance, of that which, in the lapse of three short years, might hare been claimed Jis of undeniable right. The Government of thr United States have fulfilled, and will ful- fil, the eighth article of the Louisiana treaty, according to its plain and obvious meaning. The ships of France are and will be treated, in the ju.rts of Louisiana, on the footing of the most favored nation. The ships of no nation enjoy any special favor in the ports of Louisi- ana. The ships of all nations are. in the ports of Louisiana, on the same footing, as in the ports of all the other states in the Union. The ships of all nations, in all the ports of the Union, enjoy the same adv antages, which the nations to which they belong, concede to the vessels of the United States in return. The favor, and the only favor they enjoy, is reciprocity. That favor, the American Government extend to French vessels, and ask no better of France than to ac- cept. But the American Government cannot grant, as a gratuitoug favor to France, that which they have conceded for a valuable con- sideration to others. No such stipulation is expressed in the Louisi- ana treaty: no such stipulation can, from all or any of its articles be justly inferred. In this, as in all their commercial relations with France, their most fondly cherished hope is mutual friendship, their most earnest desire equal reciprocity. I pray you, sir, to accept the assurance of my distinguished con- sideration. JOHN QUINCY ADAMS. No. 16. Baron de ^euville to Mr. *9dams. [tranlation.] March SOth, 1821. Sir: I have received your letter, dated yesterday, in answer to mine of June 16th; 1818, and 23d ultimo. 1 shall have the honor to L91] 35 reolr and believe it will not be difficult for me to shew that all my citations are correct. Not only all the Treaties betwetn France and this country, (those, it is well understood, which could admit ot such a clause,) but even allthe Treaties and Conventions between the Unit, ed States and European Governments, or nearly all, express in posi- tive or in equivalent terms, what I have stated. I will add, that the force of my argument would not be impaired, even admitting the sense attributed by you to the paragraph which seems to have more particularly fixed your attention. I shall return in a future note to this point of the discussion, as well as to all the others, and shall draw mv best arguments from the very acts ot the Federal Government, and from the opinions of the most enlightened men in the country. A better source could not be resorted to. Allow me. Sir, in the mean time, to make an observation, suggested bv the following passage of your letter: - The Government of the United States have fultilled, a..d will fulfil, the 8th article of the Louisi- ana Treatv- according to its plain meaning. The ships of France are, and will be, treated in the ports of Louisiana on the footing of the most favored nation." You had stated in your note of December, 1817: *' It is true, that the terms of the 8th article are positive and uncon- ditional; hut it will be readily perceived, that the condition, though not expressed in the article, is inherent in the advantage claimed under it. If British vessels enjoyed in the ports of Louisiana any gratuitou.s favor, undoubtedly French vessels would, by the terms of the article, be entitled to the same." • r i j In your letter of yesterday, you say that ** from a maxim founded in that justice which is at once the highest glory and the soundest policy of nations, that every favor granted to one, ought equally t3 be extended to all." ^ , . ... +i „* '' It is no exception, but an exemplification of this principle, that the vessels of England, Prussia, the Netherlands, and the Hanseatic Towns, pav in the ports of this Union, i"'^l"?'ng,\';^«^^,."^.,^r;''^;i^' no other or higher duties, than the vessels of the United States. This is not a fa?<,r, but a bargain." I cannot, I mus confess, view those matters in the same light, nor especially can admit ^«" con- clusion. But even admitting that, in reality, the four in Ranees abovementioned are mere excepted cases; al owing that t^^'S «^"^» Prussia, the Netherlands, and the Hanseatic 1 owns, enjoy "« .? « "- itous privilege or right in the United States; that they are not tavoi- ed nations, and tha , as you assert. Sir, This is not a favor, but abar^ ^a/n Admitting even'your doctrine, that gratuitous concessions f loiie constitute what is called Javor, whereby a nation becomes in the ports of another, either a favored nation or the mo t f^M red na- tion- Allowing all this, still, how would it be possible to reconcile trinterpreSn whieh'the difference between the d"t.e^s novv paid m the ports of Lordsiana by French v^«^«»«^^"^*'^"^?.f ^1 Jn L no^ ports by the vessels of such nations as have neither Canrew^^n nor Treatrj, nor have made any bargain with thi* Republic? 36 C 91 ] I am not apprized that Russians, Spaniards, Portuguese, or other nations, having none hut such like relations with tliis country, have been made to pay a duty of eighteen dollars per ton in the ports of Louisiana: and yet this duty is frequently required of the vessels of that nation, which, by virtue of an authentic instrument, and of a po- sitive contract, is entitled to be treated in future and for ever in the said ports upon the footing of the most favored nation. Although nothing can be more clear, or better established, than the right of France,' " This is not a favor, but a bargain." It was not without motive that the Charge d'Affaires of his Majesty took care to observe, in his letter of the 18lh of July last, that this was not the case of a favor refused, but that of a charge imposed, by one party on the other. Such a state of things, whatever may be the interpretation given to the 8th article, is so injurious to the rights of France, and so very contrary to the equity and honesty of the Federal Government, tliat I cannot but flatter myself that the answer now solicited to this letter, and to that of Mr. Roth, of the 18th of July, will ')"■ such as to give full satisfaction on tliis point. And if France should nut be made to enjoy immediately the right which I claim, most assuredly sho! can- not be denied, in the mean time, the enjoyment of that which is ac- knowledged. I have the honor to be, Sir, Scc. G. HYDE DE NEUVILLE. No. 17. Baron de MuviUe to Mr. Adams, dated May 15, 1821. Sir: I have now the honor to answer your letter of the 29th of March last. The terms of the eighth article of the Louisiana treaty are as fol- low: " In future, and for ever, after the expiration of the twelve years, the ships of France shall be treated upon the footing of the most favored nations, in the ports above mentioned;" meaning the ports of the territory ceded by France, Louisiana. It evidently results from the terms of this article, that the French nation is to be treated, in fu- ture, and forever after, upon the footing of the most favored nations, not in all th»ports of the United States, but in those of Louisiana. But, what is meant— what can be understood by the terms, being treated upon the footing of the most favored nations? Is tliere but one way of obtaining the right to be so treated? Or, may it be held by more than one title? Upon consulting the various treaties made between different nations, and particularly those which the United States have entered into with European powders, I find in [ 91 ] 37 almost all of them, a definition of what is meant by being treated up- - on t/wfoothhsrof the most favored nations, and these definitions are so precise, that I do not see how any conti-oversy can arise on that point. In most cases relating to the rights and priv ileges of the most favored nations, the parties even go on to explaiii, tiiat tlie fa\ or shall be free, if freely granted to another nation; or 14)011 granting tli^ same com- pensation if the concession be conditional: from which 1 conclude, that the right to be treated upon the footing of the most favored nations, may be enjoyed in two v^ ays, either graiuitouslif or conditionaUij. You, moreover, appear to me, sir, to admit this very material point: you even declare, (and in this opinion I may readily acquiesce, 1 have at least no interest in opjwsing it,) that it is not necessary that the terms gratuitously or condiiionallii, be expressed in the agreement; meaning, I suppose, where the condition of reciprocity is stipulated. Alluding to the convention of the 50th of September, 1800. you say: — < *' There is not a word in the whole convention saying, that th»se fa- vors shall be enjoyed freely if freely granted, or upon granting the same condition if conditionally granted. Yet who can doubt that this was implied in the article, though not expressed?" The article does, in my opinion, contain what 1 attributed to it, if not in express, at least in equivalent terms; but let us examine what you have stated in your answer. In the article, it is expressly said, that the two parties shall reciprocally enjoy, each in the ports of the other, as fur as regards commerce and 'navigation, the privileges of the most favored nations. It goes no further; it gives an explanation as to gratuitous or condi- tional favors, and perhaps it was unnecessary here. Fet, do you add, who can doubt that this was implied in the article, though not expressed? This admission determines the lirst point, viz: that there are two modes of being treated upon the footing of the most favored nations; and that the rights resulting therefrom may be enjoyed either freely, if freely granted, or conditionally, if granted upon condition to other nations. We shall soon have to examine whether France has or has not, from the very nature of the contract of 1803, a riglit to be treated in the ports of Louisiana, upon the footing of the most favored nations^ unconditionally, and without further compensation on her part. This second cpiestion is of no less importance; but I think it right to de- tacli it from that which now engages my attention, and the solution of which must precede all further discussion. Permit me, sir, here to suggest an observation which has struck me as being very forcible. If France, by virtue of the treaty of 1803, which secured her the rights and privileges of the most favored nations, has had a right to enjoy every favor freely, if freely granted' to other nations, or upon granting tlie same condiiion, if condCiionally granted, upon what prin- ciple, after the treaty of 1803, which secures the same treatment in a still more solemn manner, should she be reduced to the enjoyment of only such favors as are granted freely to other nations? " If British vessels enjoyed in the ports of Louisiana any gratuitous favor, un- doubtedly, French vessels would, by the terms of the article, be eu- 88 [91] titled to the same.'* It appears to me, that, after your explanation just above cited, it would be equally allowable to say, *' If British vessels enjoyed, in. the ports of Louisiana, any conditional favor, un- doubtedly French vessels would, by the terms of the article, be en- titled to the same." Thus sir, J hope you will admit, with me, the first question to be sufficiently settled. France is to enjoy, infuiurc. ?inii forever, in the ports of the territory ceded by her, the privileges of the most favored Jia- fious; and, as the treatment or favor which a nation may receive, is either free or conditional, it follows, that France has a right to be treat- ed in Louisiana upon the footing of the most favored nation, either free- ly or conditionally, untess it be proved that her contract is to form an exception; that she has already paid for the privilege which she claims, and has, therefore, a right to be treated, without further com- jjfittSfl^jon, upon the footing of the most favored nation, riiis, sir, is what I think I can easily prove. In the mean time, it is evident not only that French vessels do not enjoy in the ports of Louisiana the privileges reserved by France, but that they are even deprived of those which cannot be disputed. I liuve already shown that, far from being treated upon the footing of the most favored nations, France at this time, is of all nations that which is most unfavorably treated in Louisiana; which forms a s'j-i Ic- ing Contrast with the precise stripulations of tlie 8th article of tlie Louisiana Treaty. But what nations are, (compartively with France) treated upon the most favoured footing, in the ports of Louisiana? All those, I answer, which enjoy in the said ports, whether freely or conditionally, by virtue of treaties or without stipulation to that effect, any rights, favors, or privileges, denied to France. Hence, as it so happens, at this time, that the vessels of four different nations pay in the ports of Louisiana no other or higher duties than those paid by American vessels, 1 have surely a right to claim the same advantage for our navigation, by virtue of the 8th article of the Louisiana Treaty. You will observe, sir, that I do not speak of all the ports of the United States. Finding this last phrase repeated several times, and under- lined in your letter of the 29th, I have some fear not to have been rightly understood, or rather not to have used expressions sufficiently distinct. France has nothing to ask, she claims nothing, in all the ports of the United States. She has not to examine whether any or several nations indiscriminately enjoy in these, any rights or privileges, nor on what conditions such rights or privileges may have been granted. But, as the ports of Louisiana arc of the number of all the ports of the United States, and as France has a right to be treated in those upon the footing of the most favoi-cd nations, she claims that right as soon as it is found that the vessels of any other nation are treated there more favorably than hers. But I find, sir, in your letter: — "were it even true, that the English or any other nation enjoyed, by virtue of general stipulations of treaties, advantages in all the ports of this Union, over other nations; inasmuch as they would not be favors spe- [Qi] 89 cially limited to the ports of Louisiana, or granted with any special reference to them, they could, neither by the letter nor the spirit of the Louisiana 'J'reaty, give to France any just claim to the special participation, in those particular ports, of advantages there enjoyed only by general arrangements, ce-extensive with the whole Union." It seems to me that it would have been useless and even perfectly idle, to make any special mention of the ports of Louisiana in tlie tieatics and conventions by which certain rights, favors, or privileges are granted in all the ports of the United States, since they are comprised ■within the denomination of the ports of the United States. Giving the whole is giving every component part: and in such cases, the geneial term necessarily embraces every particular denomination. Lot us sup- pose a case. You make over to me conditionally the privilege of hunting on one of your estates, situated in a certain district; I am to enjoy this privilege if you grant it to otiiers. St)on after, you sell or make over to one of my neighbors, the privilege of hunting on all your estates you hold in the same district. It is clear that my right does not, on that account, extend to all your estates, but it certainly does not include that which is specified in my contract or conveyance. The favor is general for my neiglibors, but as it regards me, is only special* for the geneial term, I repeat it, necessarily embraces every particular denonunation. Such matters it is nottliought necessary to explain, because it is not expected that they can ever be subject to discussion. But, suppose further, that the right which I so justly claim, tiras not even granted by you; that 1 held it only in my own right; suppose it to be an express resei"vation which I had thouglit it proper to make on disposing in your favor of that estate, wliich I had con- sented to sell merely to oblige you and to suit your convenience; if 1 yielded to your instant and pressing solicitations, if, in order to per- suade me to sell this estate, you had gone so far as to offer me, not a mere condtional right of chiice, but that privilege, free from all charg- es or conditionsj to enjoij it with yon, to the same extent as yourself, and forever: if I can prove this last assertion by your own documents, you will surely admit, Sir, that this is an indisputable, sacred right, rather in the nature of property vested in me than a mere privilege over yours. This is not a favor but a bargain. What may now appear a mere assertion, shall hereafter be proved. , ** You do me the honor to state" *• The stipulation of the eighth article is in its terms limited to grants of favors in the ports of Louisiana. The 7th article has secured to French and Spanish vessels, in those ports, peculiar privileges, to the exclusion of the vessels of other nations; and the object of the eighth article was evidently to provide that, after the expiration of those twelve years, no such peculiar privileges should be granted, in the same ports, to the vessels of any other nation to the ex- clusion of those of France; the whole scope of both articles is by their letter and spirit limited to special favors and privileges granted iii those particular ports." I must confess, sir, that, so often as I have read the eighth article, I cannot discover that it evidently states that, after the expiration of those twelve years, no such peculiar privileges 40 f91] should be granted, in the same ports to the vessels of any other nation, to the exclusion of those of France. Tlie article states — notliing can be more clear, in future and forever ^ after the expiration of the twelve years, the ships of France shall be ti-eated upon the footing of the most favored nations in the ports above mentioned. Nothing what- ever is said abou.t peculiarfavors granted in the sameports to the vessels of any other nation; wiiy tiien should we attribute to the article what it does not contain? 1 will add, what it could not express. And this I shall now prodeed to prove. When France disposed of Louisiana, she certainly was entitled to reserve any rights whatever in that pro- vince, wiiether special, gratuitous^ limited, or unconditional; she soid her own property, ar.d had a right to fix its price, as the oiijer party was free to accept or to decline the offer. The express reservation made by her in the first place, for twelve years, and then, on condition of cer- tain evcntn, forever fftcr, was no more than a ])art of the price of the territory ceded; and by no means a favor granted by one party and received by the other. "This stipulation was a part of the price of the territory; it was a condition wliich the pai-ty ceding had a right to require, and to W'hich we had a right to assent; the right to acquire invfdvcd the right to give the equivalent demanded.'* I shall have occasion to revert to this opinion of one of the most distinguished nscn of the country, and which is so much in point. But to proceed with my argument: it is easy to conceive that France was entitled, when disposing nf her pro- perty, to reserve sach rights as she pleased, with or without recipro- city, for a limited time or forever; *' this was a part of the price of the territory;-*' but, if as you observe, sir, there is an express provision in the constitution that the regulations of commerce and revenue in theports of all the states of the Unionshall be the same, it evidently fol- lows that no nation can acquire by treaty or commercial convention, in theports of Louisiana alone, the advantage which France enjoys there by special title, by virtue of a bargain and sale; which in- strument is singular, from its vei-y nature, and cannot be repeated In favor of any iiation, whatever may be its comiexion or commercial interests with the United States; at least so far as respects the terri- tory ceded by France. If, therefore,. no other nation can acquire in .the ports of Louisiana alone, whether gratuitously or conditionally, the special favor, or to speak more correctly^ the right which France has thought proj)er to reser\e in those ports <' infUure and forever after,'* surely I am authorized to maintain not only that the 8th article does not, but even that it could not, admit of the meaning which is attribut- ed to it. Can it be supposed that the American negotiators bad pro- posed to France to reserve an advantage or privilege which, accord- ing to the Federal Constitution, could never be realized? To give such an interpretation to this article would not be doing justice to their honesty; it surely must have some other meaning; w hy not then adopt that which is most natural, * JFe do not presume, says Vattel, that sensible persons had nothing in view in treating together, or in * Vattell, B. II. Ch. XVII. § 283. [ 91 1 €S forming any otlier serious agreement. The interpretation which ren» ders a treaty null and without etfect cannot then be admitted. *♦ Every clause should be interpreted in such a manner, as that it may have its effect, and not be found vain and illusive."* Let us then leave to the eighth article its true sense; its expressions are clear and distinct; and it is admitted that, in the interpretation oftreatics.pacfs, and promises, -we ought not to deviate from the common nse of the language; j we also know that the first general maxim is, that it is not allowable to interpret ivhat has no need of interpretation;^ and you allow. Sir, in your letter of the 23d of December, 1817. that the terms of the 8th article are positive and unconditional. It being admitted that the terms arc positive and unconditional, and since, in order to ascertain the true sense of a contract, attention ought to be paid, ^privcipally to the ivords of him who promises; and since, on every occasion, when a per- son has, and ought to have shewn his intention, we take for true against him, what he has sn^ciently declared.^ what motive can there be. for denying France a right established in positive and unconditional terms, more espe( ially when the intention of the American nego- tiators, of those who promised, is sutliclently declared and perfectly manifest? On this subject, it v.ill soon be shown that the 8th ajiicle, which, in itself, is so precise as to require no corroboration, has, withal, by way of corollary, a document calculated to remove every possible doubt, if any could still remain. But, sir, you seem to tiiink that the 7th and 8th articles have never been, (in any respect) considered * 'as forming part of the equivalents for' the cession of Louisiana, and that the ccs^nonyvasin one treat]}, and the equivalents in two separate conventions of the same date;'' and finally, while admitting that the three insti'uments form but one whole, as it is ex])ressly declared, you add, "hut the very form of the arrangements adopted bif the par- ties, shews their common intention to regulate the cession by one com- pact, and the equivalents given for it by others:' If we are ever to deal in conjectures, why. should we not say, f(»r there would seem to be more ground for the assertion, that the 7th and 8tii articles of tlie convention are the equivalents, and the two subsequent instruments merely accessary, and the compliment ofibc bai-gain? We shall soon find, that it is quite allowable to consider, as a mere accessary, what you, sir, regard not only as the principal part, but even as the whole of the compensation. But let us set every commentary aside, the con- vention of 1803 cannot give rise to any mistake. The 7th and 8th articles established, without the least ambiguity, the nature and condi- tions of the rights reserved by France: the 9th article coming next, because what is most important should be settled before points of mi- nor consequence, sufficiently shews that the two supplementary instru- ments are only matters of execution. They, in fact, contain calcula- tions of banking and exchange; and details of liquidation which could not well have been comprised in the convention; and it is even, more- over, fully explained, that those two instruments signed on the same ♦Vattell. B. II. ch. xvii. §283 Hdem, id. id. 267. fldem, id. id. 272. 1 Idem, id. id. 265. ±Idem, id. id. 263. 6 42 r^n day, ''are to have ikeir execiitioiiin the same manner as if they had been inserted in the principal treaty, that they be ratijied iiiJthe same form, and ni the same time ond jointly.^' The question, it appears to me, may be viewed in two different lights, and will still, m either case, equally resolve itself in favor of the claims of France. In the first place, France maybe considered as having reserved certain lights of pr«)pe!ty. on disposing of her sovereignty in Louisiana: and this would appear the more correct view of the case: for, strictly speaking, the 7t!) and 8th articles are not the equivalents of the cession according to the true sense of the treaty, as understood in 1803. In the other supposition, considering the 7th and 8th articles as part of the equivalents, tlie rights and privileges therein secured to France will form, with the fifteen mil- lions dollais, the full and entire compensation for the territory ceded by her. The i)rivileges secured by the 7th and 8th articles are still, in either case, a right of property, of the most sacred nature. " This is not a Javor, but a bargain. This is not a free gift, but the fair price of that which has been soUV^ But suffer me, sir, to ob- serve, that it is entirely erroneous to suppose that neither the seventh nor eighth article v;as ever wider stood as forming a part of the equiva- lent for the cessioji:'^ Not only it was understood they did, and was so meant by the negotiators, but one of them. Mr. Livingston, while of!ering'to the French Government the express reservation of the lights and privileges in question, as I shall hereafter prove, went so far as to say that,- 6?/ those means, France would enjoy all the advaji- tages of the colony, without incurring the expense of maintaining it. Let us now add to Mr. Livingston's expressions, the formal opi- nion of Mr. Randolph, and it \\'\\l be no longer possible to maintain that neither the 7th nor Sth article was ever considered as forming part of the equivalent ^ov the terv'itovy cvilef] by France. "I regard this stipulation only as a part of the price of the territory; it was a condition which the party ceding had a right to require, and to which we had a right to assent. The right to acquire involved the right to give the equivalent demanded. ''( i ) In your letter of the 29th of March last, as well as in your note of the 23d of December, 1817, you advance that, if France could c\,i\m forever in the ports of Louis- iana, a privilege which could be denied to her in other ports of the United States, France would, in such case, have transferred only an imperfect sovereigyity to this republic. I have already endeavored to esta- blish (letter of "June l6th, 1818,) that sovereignty should e\ev be dis- tinguished from property; in support of which. I could cite many in- stances of transfers oiafuli and entire sovereignty, with the reserva- tion of certain rights or privileges, in the nature of that which France holds in the ports of Louisiana. But the very terms of the article • make it perfectly useless to discuss this point. The expression forever is sufficiently explicit. In the ports of the territory cededt surely implies that Fraru c is entitled to the privilege claimed by her in Louisiana only, and it may therefore, at all times, be denied her (1) Conj;res% House of Ri-prcsentatives. Mr. Randolpli's debate of the Lou- isiana treaty, Tuesday, October 25, 1803. [911 43 in the other ports of tlie United States, unless some other treaty or convention should intervene. You persist, also, in believing that the right claimed by France, is in cojitradiction with the constitution of the United States, which declares that '« all duties, imposts, and ex- cises, shall be uniform throughout the United States, and that no preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one state over those of anolhei'.^' I could add several very plausible arguments to th«)se which 1 have already made against that supposed inconsistency; I nnght, perhaps, also, contend, with some advantage, against the manner in vvliich you exj)lain the admission of the state of Louisiana on an equal footing with the original slates, in all resppcts whatever, in spile of the privilege whicii Fi-ance and Spain still enjoyed in its ports. I tiiink I should have some right to observe, that, in all co/is/ii/tfio/itt^ questions, no modification is admis- sible, and Jiothing is to be assumed except according to the f(»rms re- quired by the constitution itself; that representative Governments scarcely admit of acts of mere courtesyj that they have the law alone in view; and that it is, therefore, to be piesumed, that Congress would not have emancipated, before its maturity, the adopted child of the Union, nor have given him a preference not sanrtioned by the constitii- tion, (I) if, in fact, tliemeasuie could have been considered as illegal. But, sir, my Government fias nothing to do with the questiosi of con- stitutionality; it is, therefore, proper for me to decline dlr^cussing it, and 1 shall be satisfied uith recnlling some very respectable opinions which militate in favor of my positions, oi- against what is objected to them, and destroy all idea of inconsistency between tlie 7th and 8th articles' of the Louisiana treaty and the Federal Constitution. (2) Mr. Rodney — ' It is contended that the United Stiitcs have no rigfit to purchase teriitory; that they have no right to admit the peo- ple of Louisiana to a participation of the rights det ived from an admis- sion into the Union; and that a peculiar favor is about beiiig granted to the ports of New Orleans, in violation of the Constitution. In the view of the Constitution, the Union was composed of two corporate bodies, of states and tcrritoi-ics; a recurrence to the Constitutioti, Avill shew that it is pi-edicated on the principles of the United States, ac(piiring territory either by war, treaty, or purchase. Ti.eie was one part of that instrument within whose capucioiis grasp, all these modes of acquisition were embraced. By the Constitution. Congress have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts and ])ro\ ide for the common defence, an>l general wel- fare of the United States. To provide for the general welfare; the import of these terms is very compi-eheusive iiuleed. If tiii.s general delegation of autliority be not at variance with other particula)' pow- ers specially granted, nor restiicted by them, if it be not in any de- gree comprehended in those subsequently delegated, I camiot, said Mr. Rodney, perceive why. within the fair meaning of this gene^i'al provi- sion, is not included the power of increasing oui' territory, if neces- sary, for the general -welfare or common defence. Sujij-ose, for instance, (1) It cannot, most assvir- dly be correct to violate the principles of the Constitu- tion/or a dat/.—Mr. Griswold. House of Representatives, debate 25 8ber, 1303. (2) Debate, 25 8ber 1801, House of llw prGscn'alives. 44 C 91 ] that Great Britain should propose to cede to us, the Island of New Providence, so long the seat of pirates preying upon our commerce, and the hive from which they have swarmed — will any gentlemen say that we ought not to embrace the opportunity presented, as a defence against further depred^ttions? Suppose the Cape of Good Hope, where our East Indiamen so generally stop, were offered to be ceded to us by the nation to which it belongs, and that nation should say, on our possessing it, you shall declare it a free port. Is there any member who hears me, that would contend that we were not authorized to receive it, notwithstandiug the great advantages it would ensure to us." " I'here is anotlier sound answer to the objection of gentlemen: thisisproperUjcededto us by the power ccdiyig it with a particular re- servation.*' (1) Mr. Smilie. — '' If the prevailing opinion shall be that the in- habitants of the ceded Territory, cannot be admitted under the consti- tution, as it now stands the people of tlie United States can, if they see fit, ajjply a reinedy by amending the constitution, so as to authorize the a^iiiiission." (2) Mr. Crowninshield. — "It surely cannot be unconstitutional, to receive the sliips of France or Spain, m the poi-ts of the new territory, u])oi) any terms whatever. It is a mere condition of the purchase, and this House may or may not agree to it. Being a mere commercial regula- tion, we have the power to give our assent or disseiit to the article in question; tor I hold it to be correct doctrine, that this House, by the con- stitution, have tiie power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, as well as witli the Indian Tribes, and that, whenever the President and Scjiate make a treaty, involving any commercial points,our consent is absolutely necessary to cari-y the treaty into effect. By giving our as- sent, we do not injure the right of the other ports in the Atlantic states, as the privilege is extended only to ports in the, ceded territory. I con- sider the eastern or carrying states, as particularly and deeply interested in tlie acquisition of Louisiana; it is true, tlieir ships already visit al- most e\ery part, but under many restrictions, and I wish to sec them sailing on tlie Mississippi, witlu)ut molestation or restraint.'* *' I am in favor of adopting these treaties, and they shall have my hearty support." (3) Mr. Randolph. — *'The unconstitutionality of this treaty, is attempted to be shown by the following quotation from that instrument: No preference shall be given to the ports of one state over those of aiiother state, &c. kc. New Orleans, therefore, will enjoy an exenqjtion. She is therefore a favored port, in contradiction to the express letter of the Constitution. To ine, it appears that tliis argument has much more of ingenuity than of force in it; more of subtlety than of substance. Let us suppose that the treaty, instead of admitting French and Spanish vessels, on the terms proposed, merely convenanted to admit American vessels on equal terms, with those of France and Spain. If we acquired this (1) Debate on llie L( uisiana treaty, Tuesday, 8ber 25th, 1803. (2) Debate on the I.( uisiana treaty, Tuesday, Bber 25th, 1803. (3) Debate on the Louisiana Irea'ty, Tuesday, 8ber 25th, 1803. C 91 ] 45 right, divested of the country, it would have been considered and just- ly, ias an impoj^tant privilege. Annex the tei'i'itory to it, and you can- not accept it! You may, indeed, acquire cither tlie commercial privi- lege or the territory, without violating the Constitution, but take them both, and that instrument is infringed! ** I regard this stipulation only as a part of the price of the territory. It was a condition which the party ceding had a right to require, and to which we had a right to assent. The right to acquire, involved the right to give the equivalent demanded. Mr. Randolph said, that ho expected to hear it said in the course of the debate, that tlic treaty in question might clash with the treaty of London, in this particular: hev»ould, therefore, take this opportunity in remarking, that the pri- vilege granted to French and Spanish bottoms, being ajparf of the con- sideration fur icliich xve had obtained the countrif, and the Court of Lon- don being officially appri:.:ed of the transaction, and acquiescing in the arrangement, it would ill become any member of that House to bring forwar>l such an objection," ( 1 ) Mr. Adams. — •' But it has been argued that the bill ought not to pass, because the bill itself is an unconstitutional, or, to use the words of tiie gentleman from Coiuucticut, an extra constitutional act. It is, therefore, say tliey. anuUity. AVe caniiotfuihl our part of its conditions, and on our failure in the performance of any one stipulation, France may consider !»orsell as absolved from tlie obligations of the whole treaty on hers; i do not conceive it necessary to enter into the merits of the tieaty, at this time, I'he proper occasion for that discussion is past; but, allowing even that this is a case for which the Constitution has not provided, it does not, in my mind, follow, that the treaty is a nullity or that its obligations cither on us, or on France, must necessarily be cancelled. France never can have the light to come and say, I am discharged from the obligations of this treaty, because your Presi- dent and Senate, in ratifying it, exceeded their powers; for this would be i>iterfering in tlie internal arrangements of our Govern- ment. It would be intermeddling in questions with which she has no concern, and which must be settled entirely by ouiselves. The only question I'm- France, is, ^^hether she has conti-acted with the Depart- ment of our Government authorized to make treaties; and, this being clear, her only right is to require that the conditions stipulated in our name, be punctually performed; 1 trust they will be so performed, and will clieerfdlly lend my hand to every act necessary for the purpose; for Iconsidtr the ohject as of the highest advantage to ns.'* The opinions I have just cited, have so nuich weight, that I shall not attempt to support them by further autliority, and shall consider it as sulhciently established : 1st. That the rights reserved by France are, in fact, properly Tested in her; or. in otlier words, that the territory of Louisiana is a properlif ceded with particular reservation. 2dly^ That if, in 1803, the Louisiana treaty was deemed wwconsh*- iutional. by some of the distinguished characters of the United States, the great majority of Cojsgress declared itself in favor of a contrary doctrine. (1) Senuie debate, Nov. 3J, 1803. 46 [ 91 J I Sdly. That the question of constitutionality is, and should be, foreign to France, and that her only right is, to require that the conditions stipulated be punclually and faithfully performed. The I*'rench Government desires no more; and has, therefore, I think, a right to expect, that a claim so well founded will cease to be disputed. I read in your letter, " Nor is the proof, that these ai'ticles formed na part, in the estimation of either of the parties, of the equivalents for the cession,confined to this tacit evidence in the forms of the negoriation. The seventh article bears upon its face the avowal of the motives by which it was dictated. Its introductory words aie: * Js it is red-pro- cally advantageous to the commerce of France and the United States, to encourage the comnmnication of both nations, for a limited time, in the country ceded,^ kc. kc. &c The reciprocal advantages to the connnerce of France and the United States was the end; the encouragement of their commimicatinnfi for a limited time in the country ceded, were the means; and the eiglith article, following as a corolliu-y from the seventh," &c. &c. &c. I think I have already sufficiently shewn, that the two parties in the contract had hut one and the same mode of understauding the 7th and 8th articles: but, even if I had not, in support of my opinion, those already cited, and that of Mr. Livingston, wliich I shall soon have occasion to produce, still would my position be incontrovertibly proved by the very terms of those articles. You cite, sir, the introductory expressions of the seventh article. Allow me to invite you to examine its conclusion, which appears to me more explicit, and leaves no doubt as to the true intention of the negotiators. But perhaps it would be still better to cite the whole article. It speaks for itself, and sufficiently explains what induced the negotia- tors to fix the duration of the privilege conveyed by the seventh arti- cle, and to assign no limitation to the right of property secured by the eighth. <'As it is reciprocally advantageous to the commerce of France and the United States to encourage the communication of both nations, for a limited time, in the country ceded by the present treaty, until general arrangements relative to the commerce of both nations may be agreed on; it has been agreed between the" contracting parties, that the French ships, coming directly from France, or a)iy of her colonies, loaded only with the produce or manufactures of France, or her said colonies; and the ships of Spaiii, coming directly from Spain, or any of her colonies, loaded only with the produce or manufactures of Spain, or her colonies, shall be admittcMl, during the space of twelve years, in the ports of New Orleans, and in all other legal ports of entry within the ceded territory, in the same manner as the ships of the United States coming directly from France or Spain, or any of their colonies, without beiiig subject to any other or greater duty on merchandise, or other or greater tonnage, than those paid by the citizens of the United States. During the space of time above mentioned, no other nation shall have a right to the same privileges rn the ports of tlie ceded territory. Tiic twelve years shall commence [913 47 three months after the exchange of ratifications, if it sliall take place in France, or three months after it shall have been notified at Paris to the French Government, if it shall take place in the United States. It is, howevei', well understood, that the object of the above article is, to favor the manufactures, commerce, freight, and navigation, of France and if Spain, so far as relates to the impoi-tations that the French and Spajiish shall make into the said ports of the United States, w ithout in any sort affecting the regulations that the United States may make concerning tiie exportation of the produce and merchandise of the United States, or any right tliey may have to make such regulations." ^Vhat appears most clearly dcducible from the terms of this article is. that it was thought advantageous to the commerce of France and of the United States to encourage, in a very special manner, tlie com- munications of the two nations in the ports of the tei-ritory ceded; that the principal object ^^as to favoi'the inanufactui-es, tlie commerce,^ and the shipping, of France and Spain. I can see no other advantage resulting from the 7th article for the United States, and it must be admitted that its stipulations are, in fact, advantageous only to France and to Spain. No reciprocity is granted to tlie United States, either in the ports of France or in tiiose of Spain. Their communi- cation with B'rance will, it is true, be more frequent, but only in the ports of the ceded territory. Perhaps the article might have been worded with more care, but, aftei* all, it expresses no moie than I have stated. If tiic avowed object of the article was to favoi-, in a special manner^ not oidy ti»e commerce and navigation of France, but like- wise the commerce and naxigation of Spain, withont any reciprocal stipulation for the United States, it is easy to discern what induced the American negotiators to demand that the piivilege which France was not alone to enjoy in I^uisiana should be limited in its duration; more especially as, during that time, no other nation could be admitted to enjoy the same favor. But w Iiere the ])i'i\ ilege ceased to be common to Spain, the French Government, while consenting to modify it as by the eighth article stipulated for the perpetual and unconditional enjoyment of the right of property tlnis reserved, the eighth article does not, as did the 7th, stipulate that other nations shall not be ti^eat- ed as favorably as those of France in the ports of the territoi'y ceded by her; such a condition could be imposed but for a limited time. But it was natural that, when yielding to the solicitations of the American negotiators, the French Government consented to cede Louisiana, it should secure to France the right never to be treated more unfavorably than any other nation in the ports of her former colony, whether those favors be purchased or not by such nations; that the transaction which, on the part of France, was at once a great sacrifice and a striking proof of her fi-iendship for these Ignited States, should not, in the end, turn to her detriment, but should, at least, secure some lasting advantage to her commerce and naviga- tion. All this is not mere conjecture of my own; the facts are posi- tive and clear; and every doubt must cease after attending to the following sentiments, not of the French negotiators, but of Mr. JAvingston himself, in the memorial addressed by him to the French 48 [ 91 J Government on this question. Is it advantageous for France to take possession of Louisiana? He does not confine himself to proposing that Fi'ance sliould reserve, forever, and without reciprocity for ike United States, the right stipulated in the eighth article, but even that which she subsequently held by the 7th article for twelve years only. *'Does France wish/' says Mr. Livingston, '»to introduce more easily her productions into the western country; does she desire to accustom its inhabitants to her wines and manufactures, and to con- quer the prejudices which tlie yVmcricans entertain i)» favor ot Ei^g- lish goods, &c. &c. &c. JU this can be accomplished only by the ces- sion of New Orleans to the United States, with the reserve of the i'ight of entry, at all times, for the ships and merchandises of France, free from all other duties than those paid by American vessels. By those means, American merchants established in New Orleans will be intere^ed in her trade; their capital, instead of being sent to Eng- land, will go to France, w/io will Ihns enjoy all the advantages of the colony, without incurring the expense requisite to support it, and the money which Amei-ica, by her industry, has drawn from Spain, will be restored to France, which England, not enjoying the same advan- tages, and payiug higher duties, could not furnish them at the same price." This passage of the memorial of the minister from the United States, is suflicicntly clear, and we siiall see that he, furthermore, takes care to corroborate its evident intention. Let us continue to follow the course of his argument. "The possession of Louisiana,"^ does he say, "is very important for France, if she draws from it the only advantage which sound policy would seem to indicate. I speak of Louisiana only, not including Florida, because I do not consider it as forming pai-t of the territory ceded, as she may, by means of the cession, have a free trade on the Mississippi, if she knows how to avail herself of the circumstance by an understanding with the United States. S!ie w ill hnd a market for a great variety of goods when she shall have accustomed the inliabitants of the western country to pre- fer them to English goods, which she can only accomplish by giving them at a lower price, and this she can obtain only by giving Ame- rican merchants an interest in seHi-'ig them, in employing there their capital, and by inducing the American Government to give them the preference. All this can only be accomplished by the cession of New Orleans to the United States, reserving the right of entry, at all times, free from ail other duties than those paid by American vessels, together with the free navigation of the Mississippi. This will give her vessels the advantage over those of all other nations, and ^Yill not only retain, but increase the capital of the city of New Orleans, and hence, provisions for the islands w ill be purchased there at a lower rate, and French manufactures will be moi'e easily introduced into the western country, which the United States will have no interest in preventing, every cause of rivalship between the two nations being completely removed. Thus will France command respect without inspiring fear to the two nations w hose friendship is most important to her commerce, and to the preservation of her colonies; and all these advantages will be secured without incurring the expense of esta- blishments which ruin the public treasure, and divert its capital from T.; ? y [91] 49 its true object." What! Mr. Livingston, in order to inrture France to cede tlie tercitory of Louisiana, olt'crs licr more! from l)«Mievolent motives, established in the very treaty itself, she subsequently con- sents to accept or to reserve less^ and even tliis shall be contested! The article whicli secures this to her shall be said to have no mean- ing, and he sujjposed to have expressed a mere impossibiilty ! I will here dwell upon an idea tending to exphiin how such doubts could Jiave arisen. Sir. Livingstou's memorial must ha\e been lost sight of. 1 shall now proceed to (lisctiss, as briefly as ])0ssible. the error which you think you have discovered in the citation of my note of June 16th, 1818. On this subject, I have already observed, in my letter of the 30th March last, that even if such an error had been com- mitted, the strength of my argument wonld not thereby have been impaired. But let us examine, if, in fact, there be any such mis- take; there are but eight treaties or contracts between France and the United States; four of these are of such a nature as not to admit of the clause in question; in two others it \s formally expressed; in ano- ther it is mentioned in equivalent terms; the last, which is tlie Louis- iana treaty, is alone silent in that respect; and this silence furnishes, of itself, an irrcsi-.tible argument: 1 was, therefore, riglit, in saying that all the treaties w hich could admit of that clause, mention, express- iif, the condition of reciprocity. It is of no conse(]uence that one of them should not positively use the words, freely if freely granted, or upon granting the same condition if conditionally granted. These words are a mere accessary, irrelevant to the question, in the exami- nation of which you have alleged my quotation to be eri-oneous. This «[ucstion I shall now establish in its simplest form, and shall give it some extension so as better to ex])lain my oj»inion. I say tliat in all tlie treaties of the United States, not only with France, but with the other European nations, when mention is made therein of being treat- ed upon the footing of the most favoi'ed nations, this condition of re- ciprocity is expressed, stipulating that the contracting parties shall enjoy the same privileges and ad\antages each in the ports of the other. One insti-ument alone is drawn in very different terms; it states, in future and forever affer^ the French nation shall be treated upon the footing of the mvst favored nations, in the ports of the terri- tory ceded by her. The clause stops here; what are wc to conclude, that, in fact, there was nothing omi^toi. nothing implied ^ by the nc gotiators. (sous entendu) reciprocity was not due; and, therefore, no mention is made of it. It was not due, because the convention of 1803 had no analogy with mere commercial treaties or regulations: it waiS a sale, a bargain; the seventh and eighth articles ai'C reserva- tions of rights of property made by the ^ esidor; a mere condition of the purchase, (Mi-. Crowninshield:) a part of the price of the terri- tory, (Mr. Randolph;) finally, beca.use the territory of Louisiana is a property ceded xvith a particular reservation, (Mr. Rodney.) Were it even a commercial treaty, still, since the condition of reciprocity is not mentioned, France would have a right to maintain that she owes it not, and she could allege in her favor a very respectable opi- 7 50 [91] nioii, in the folloT\ing words of Mr. Madison, (Speech on the British Treaty.) <' The fifteenth article has another extraordinary feature, which, 1 shouUl imagine, must strike every observer. In other treat- ies, wliich profess to put the parties on the footing of the most favor- ed nations, it is stipulated that, where new favors are granted to a particular nation in return for favors received, the party claiming the new^ favor shall pay the price of it. This is just and proper w here the footing of the most favored nation, is established at all. But this article gives to Great Britain the full benefit of all privileges that may be granted to any other nation, without rerpiiring from her the same or equivalent privileges with those granted by such nation; hence it would happen, that if Spain, Portugal, or France, should open their colonial ports to the United States, in consideration of cer- tain pivileges in our trade, the same privileges would result gratis and ipso facto to Great Britam." But vvc have not even to examine this question, that which occupies our attention, is quite different, since it relates to a sale, a bargain; not a favor but a bargain. I think, Sir, I have sufficiently proved — 1st. That there are two modes of being treated upon the footing of the most favored nations. eit!ier gratuitously or conditinnalhj. 2.\\y. That the sliips of four nations enjoy, at this time, in the United States, and, of course, in the ports of Louisiana, the rights and privileges of the most favored nations. Stlly. That France, according to the terms of the eighth article of tlie Louisiana Treaty, has a right to be put in possession of the same privileges in these said ports, being part of those of the United States. 4thly. That she owes, and can owe, no reciprocity, not only be- cause no such condition is stipulated in the contract, but also because the privilege in question, is a rigiit of property reserved, or, if you prefer it so. is one of the e((uivalents of the bargain. othly. That the intention of the negotiators cannot be doubtful, since the article which, in itself, requires no explanation, has, as a corollary, an authentic document, which would irresistibly prove, by the very cii'cumstances of the case, what was meant and intended, if the tieatv itself had not expressed it in the most explicit terms. I therefore hope. Sir, that, after the preceding explanation, the Pre- sident will be pleased to order that, in future and for ever, (unless in case of subsequent arrangements to the contrary, between France and the United States,) the eightli article of the Louisiana treaty receive its full and entire execution, and that, by consequence, French vessels be immediately made to enjoy, in the ports of the ceded territory, all the rights, advantages, and privileges, granted to Great Britain, and to other nations, by virtue of treaties, or in any other manner. I have the honor to be, Sir, Your most humble and obedient servant, G. HYDE DE NEUVILLE. Note. Is it likely that France can have intended to cede, for the ijiere consideration of a sum of fifteen millions of dollars, property [91] 51 which, even before the cession, was considered as having an incalcu- lable value, which a distinguislied member of Congress valued (Deb. o5th 8bcr. 1803,) at more than fifty millions, and which, in a well written article of the National Intelligencer, of the 10th of Bber, 1803, was esteemed to be worth six hundred millions of dollars? And it must not be said that France was ignorant of its value, since, before the cession, the American public prints took continual pains to inform her of it. I shall here cite one of these articles, signed Columbus, (Nat. Intell. 2d Sept. 1803.) The writer complains that several of the public prints strive to take from the merit of Mr. Livingston's memorial: he expresses a fear tiiat tliey should persuade France that it is contrary to her interests to cede Louisiana to this Republic. He cites the* following passage of a paper published in Frederick- town, which would go to prove to the French Minister in A\ ashing- ton, that the First Consul would commit an act of great folly m consenting to abandon so vast a territory. <' The democrats cannot think tiie l^irst Consul, Bonaparte, such a simpleton as to part with that country for any compensation we can make him." Thus, adds Columbus, it is represented that no- thing, in our command, is enough for those objects, (Louisiana and New Oi'leans.) . , . Most ceitainlv Bonaparte will never be regarded as a simpleton; nor will it be alleged that he had such affection for the inhabitants of these United Slates as to have had, in the cession of Louisiana, no other object but that of rendering them a service. Surely he must, at the same time, have thought of his own country, and have intended, by reserving certain rights and privileges in favor of Fi-ance. to secure, at least, a sort of compensation for the great sa- crifice to which he was subjecting her. _ In whatever light this subject is viewed, the cession ot Louisiana must certainly be considered as one of the most inconsideiate and fatal measures of the Usurper: but still it is not allowable to sup- pose that he could, on this occasion, have entirely lost sight of the interests of France, and have consented to give up, for the mere con- sideration of fifteen millions of dollars, an innnense territory, which will be a never-failing source of riches and prosperity to these Unit- ed States, and which, to France, would have, been worth all the co- lonies which she now possesses, or has possessed, m the two hemi- spheres. The following opinion is such authority that I cannot better con- clude than with citing it. , . ^ i *i ^ I consider the object as of the highest advantage to us; and the 2;entleman from Kentucky himself, who has displayed, with so much eloquence, the immense importance to this Union of the possession of the ceded country, cannot carry his ideas further, on that subject, than I do Sen. deb. 3. 9bei'. 1803. 53 [91] Mr. Adams to Biron Hyde de JS'^enville. Department or State, Washiagton, l5th June, 1821. Sir: In replying to the two letters which I have had the honor ot receiving froni you, the one hearing date the 29th of March last, and the other tlie 15th oi' May, 1 find it necessary to re-state, in its sim- plest terms, the question in discnssion hetweea us. The seventh and eighth articles of tlic treaty by which Louisiana was ceded lo the United Siates, contain two distinct, but obviously connected stipnlavions; that of the seventh article, by which certain special privileges in the ports of tiie ceded territory are secured, for the term of twelve years, to the vessels of France and S])ain, to the ex- elusion of ih^ vessels of all other nations; and tL'at of the eighth article, that, after the expiration of this special privilege, thus limited to the ports of the ceded territory, French vessels should be forever, in the ports of the ceorts. Upon the tei'ms of this article, by your note of the 15 th of Decem- ber, 1817, you demanded, in the name and by order of your govern- ment, and as in fulfilment of this article, that all the advantages yield- ed /oj' ample equivalent to British vessels, in all the ports of this Unions should be yielded, ivitJiout anij equivalent, to French vessels, in tlie ports of Louisiana. The answer which immediately presented itself, on the first dis- closure of this demand, was, that the claim was, in two important particulars, broader than the stipulation upon which it wjis laised; first, inasmuch as, u])on the mere right to equal favor, it reqiiired gratuitously, that which was conceded to another for a just equiva- lent; and, secondly, inasmuch as, upon a stipulation limited in all its parts to the ports of Louisiana, it required concessions yielded to oth- ers in all the ports of the Union. As t!ie claim was thus without support from the letter of the article, it was also apparently contradirtory to its spirit and motives, as well as to the whole purpose of the treaty, and expressly incompatible with other articles of the treaty, and with the Constitution of the United States. Such was the substance of the answer, which, on the 23d of December, 1817; I had the honor of addressing to you in reference to this claim. By your note of 16th June, 1818, you replied witii the allegation, that France was entitled, by this article, to enjoy, nnconditionalbf, in the ports of Louisiana, any advantage granted upon conditions to others in all the ports of the Union, because France was to be consi- dered as having already given the equivalent by the cession of the territory; and, especially, because you alleged, that, in all the other treaties between France and the Ilnited States, it was expressly said, that tlie two contracting ])artics should enjoy, reciprocally, any favor granted to otiiers gratuitouslii. if the concession to others should be gratuitous, or, by granting the same compensation if the concession siionld be conditional; and, as no such distinction between [91] 53 coiulUional and gratuitous favor was formally expressed in the 8th ar- tide of the Louisiana cession treaty, you insisted with great earnest- ness, that this variation in the pliraseology of the article from that which had been universally used in all the preccdiiig treaties between the parties, led, irresistibly, to the conclusion, that no such distinc- tion was intended; but that tbe United States were bound forever to gi\ e to the vessels of France in Louisiana, every advantage, which, to the end of time, they might sell for a imce to the vessels of other nations throughout tlie Unioji. The great stress ^vith whicli your note of 16th June, 1818, dwelt upon this supposed departure from the universal language of the prior treaties, made it necessary to observe, that its only basis was an er- ror in point of fact; tliat no such concurrence in the form of language used in relation to the same principle, existed in the pi'ior treaties; that the alternative reciprocity of conditional ov gratuitous favor, far from being expressed in all the treaties between the parties, had in terms beeji expressed only in one, and that, the first treaty ever made between them; and particularly that a treaty concluded with the same government, as the Louisiana cession, and only tiiree years before, contained such an article, stipulating, mutually, the advantages of the must favored nc.tion, without any notice whatsoever of distinction between favors gratuitous and favors conditioiwl; and that this varia- tion of the pliraseology in the prior treaties, of stipulations obviously intending the same thing, not only swept away the argument which you had drawn from the supposed universal coincidence of the former ti'caties, but made it recoil upoii itself, and proved that gratuitous or the conditional nature of equal favor was iniierent in the terms them- selves, and had only been expressly developed in tiie treaty of the 6th February, 1778. from tlie abundant caution of contracting parties, new to each othei", and above all anxious to leave no possible question of their meaning, thereafter to arise. Your reply of 30th March last, to my note of the preceding day, insists that *'all your citations, in your preceding letters, had been perfectly exact; that not only all the ti'eaties between France and this Republic, (meaning the conventions wliich could be judged suscepti- ble of the clause in question,) but, also, all, or ntarly all, the trea- ties 01- conventions between the United States and European Govern- ments, say, in terms formal, or equivalent, what you had understood, what you had read, what you had been bound to say." Permit me to observe, that the simple question between us was, v.'hether all the treaties between the United States and France, ex- cepting only t!ie Louisiana treaty, in stipulating the advantages of the most favored nation, had expressly added that the favor should be free, if freely granted to others, and upon the same condition, if con- ditionally granted. Your letter of the l6th June, 1818, in the most unqualified terms asserted that they had; and from this position, con- nected with the omission of the same explanatory clause, in the stip- ulation of the Louisiana treaty, you had deduced, and most earnestly pressed an argument, that this supposed solitary change in the redac- tion, necessarily imported a different constrisction, and entitled France 54 [91 J to enjoy, in the ports of Louisiana, uncondltionallyy every favor grant- ed to others, whctlier with condition or without. The demand uj)on a stipulation of equal favor, to enjoy without equivalent, or condition, that which was conceded to others only for an equivalent, or upon condition, was, in itself, so extraordinary, that it assuredly required something stronger than inferences, and implications, and equivalent terms, for its support. The main argu- ment upon which Mr. de Neuville's letter of I6th June, 1818, had relied for this unexampled claim was the omission in the Louisiana cession treaty, of the express explanatory words alleged to he in all the others. But the fact being otherwise, the conclusion was more clearly the reverse. It may now he added, that the only possible sense in which a stipu- lation for equal favor can be carried into effect, is by granting it freely, or for the equivalent, arcorditig as it is granted to others. For if the same advantage should be granted to France, rvithout re- turn, which is conceded to others only for the return, who does not see that France, instead of being upon equal footing with the most favor- ed nation, would herself be upon afooting)uo/T favored than any other? In the latter part of your letter of the 30th March, without aban- doning this demand of exclusive favor, built upon a simple engage- ment of equal favor, you seem to admit that the dimiuution of duties conceded to the vessels of several nations in the ports of this Union, is not a fa^or, but a bargain; and you alleged that, e\en upon this principle, French vessels should be exempted from the additional ton- nage duty of the act of 15th May, 1820, in the ports of Louisiana, because the vessels of Russia, Sjiain, Portugal, and other nations with wliom the United States have no treaty, are not subject to it; and, re- peating a remark which had been made by the Charge d'Affairs of France, in August last, you say this is not merely a favor refused, but a burden imposed. The vessels of nations with whom the United States have no trea- ties, enjoy no favors i/i the parts of Louisiana. In the ports (»f Louisi- ana, the vessels of all nations are on the same footing as in those of all the other ports of the United States: there is no most favored na- tion in the |)orta of Louisiana, nor in any other port of the United States. During the twelve years, while the vessels of France and Spain weie admitted into the ports of Louisiana alone, upon terms more favorable than into the ports of the United States, and from which the vessels of other nations were excluded, they were the most favored nations in the ports of Louisiana; but the favors were confin- ed both to the vessels of those nations and to the poits of Louisiana. They enjoyed this favor by virtue of the seventh article of the treaty; and the object and purport of the next article was to stipulate that, when this special and limited period of favor should expire, no such special and exclusive favor should be granted to any other nation, in the same ports. Such is the engagement of Ihe United States; and, as such, it has been, and will continue to be, fulfilled. No favor is now granted to any nation in the ports of Louisiana^ and the eighth article of the treaty has no more application to the general conimer- L 91 J 65 cial laws of the United States, operating alike in every part of the Union, than it has to the special bargains by which the vessels of some nations enjoy a reduction from the duties imposed by those gene- ral laws, on the condition of equivalent advantages to the vessels of the United States in the countries to which they belong. To the demand therefore, that the vessels of France should pay no higher duties in the ports of Louisiana, than the vessels of Russia, Spain, Denmark, or Portugal pay in all the ports of the Union, the answer is the same as that given to your demand in terms by youp letter of 15th December, 1817, that the vessels of France should pay in the ports of Louisiana, no liigher duties than those paid by British vessels iu all the ports of t/ieUnion. The claim is broader than the sti- pulation upon which it is founded. This stipulation is, both by its letter and spirit, confined to special favors in special ports. The claim is either to general favois, a])|)Iied to special ports, or to unre- quited favors for conditional obligations. In every such case, and by either of the constructions for which you contend, the United States could not assent to your claim without favoring Fi-ance in the ports of Louisiana more tljan any other nation. Instead of being upon the same footing of the most favored nation, she would herself be the most favored nation, and enjoy advantages conceded to no others. "^I'his is not the stipulation of the treaty. In your letter of the 15th ult. you remark, that the exemption of the vessels of other nations from the extraordinary tonnage duties levied upon those of France, inasmuch as it is enjoyed in all the ports of the Union, ia enjoyed also in the ports of Louisiana, as a part of the Union; and, being enjoyed tljeie, France has, by the engage- ment of the treaty, a right to claim the same exemption i?i those ports, although she is not entitled to claim it in the otiier ports of the Union. But it is this very generality, by virtue of which the ves- sels of other nations enjoy tiie exemption, wiiicli takes away from it all application of the eighth article of the treaty. Their exemption is not a favor in the ports of Louisiana, even when they enjoy the be- nefit ofit in those ports: they enjoy no special favor there; and it is to auch special favor only that the stipulation could give France an equal claim. In your letter of the IStli ult. it is observed that the question is *'what must be understood by being treated upon the footing of the most favored nation;" but this is not the question, because it does not cite the whole stipulation; the omission of the words "in the ports abovementioned," changes the state of the question from its special to a general character. The stipulation is, that " the ships of France shall be treated upon the footing of the most favored nations in the ports abovementioned.^* The qualifying and special terms '"in the ports abovementioned," apply botii to the most favored nations and to the treatment of the ships of France; nor can France claim any favor in the ports of Louisiana by this stipulation, without first showing that some other nation enjoys the same favor, as a special favor exclusive- ly in those ports. There is no such favored nation in the ports of Louisiana. In the omission of those words, it is believed that their 56 [91] great importance to the question in discussion had escaped attention. Their restoration to the statcraent of the question will immediately show their leading to a different conclusion. You ohservc, indeed, in another part of your letter, tliatyou claim this favor in favor of France only in the ports of Louisiana; and you express vour apprehension that I had misunderstood the purport of the de- mands in your precediiig lct?ers, hecausc I had specially underscored the terms in all the ports of the Union, when rcfci-riiig to the fhitics collected upon the vessels of other nations. I nm v. ell aware tJiat you Jiave demanded the special favor for I'^raiice. only in the poits of j.ou- isiana; but you demand tlse special favor in the spocial |)orts, not as the stipulation of the aiticle would warrant if the case existed, because otlier nations enjoy the same special favor in the special jiorts, but because, by general laws, applicable to tlic vessels of those foreign nations in all the ports of the Union, they jjay in the poi'ts of Louisiana less for tonnage duty than tiie vessels of France. You observe thatit would iiavc been superfiuous, and even idle, to make sjiecial mention of the ports of Louisiana in treaties granting certain rights, favors, or privileges, in all the ports of the Union, be- cause, in the ports of the Union, are included those of Louisiana; that to give the whole is to give a part; as in such cases the generality iiecessarily includes the specialty. This observation, as applicable to treaties between the United States and other nations, is correct: but the inference to be drav.n from the principle asserted, is conclu- sive against the claim of France in the present case. For it is not to any such concession of a gejieral nature, and wdiich is enjoyed by others in the ports of Louisiana, only because they are ports of the Union, that the stipulation of the eighth article of the Louisiana ces- sion ti-eaty a])plies. I'hat stipulation, both in letter and spirit, is, in all its'sparts, special and not general. The whole transaction refers spe- cially' to Louisiana, as distinct from, and not as a part of, this Union. The seventh article stipulates for special favors in its iTorts for a term of years, to the exclusion of other nations; and the eighth pnjvides against the concession of similar special favors after the exjjiration of the twelve years, to other nations, to the exclusion of those of France. It is not, therefore, sufficient for France to say, that tlie vessels of four other nations pay only one dollar a ton in the ports of Louisiana, while those of France arc retpiired tq pay eighteen. For those ves- sels pay that dollar only, not because tliey are move favored than other nations in those ports, but because they pay the same in all the ports of the Union; because those nations have passed no laws excluding the vessels of the United States from carrying to their ports the pro- ductions of their own soil by tiie excessive aggravations of surcharges. There is no difference of opinion between us with regard to the principles which ought to apply in the construction of compacts, pro- mises, and treaties. Admitting the correctness of all your citations from Vattel, I would specially invite your attention to that which forbids all constructive interpretation of that which speaks for itself. But I ask that, in stating the question upon tiie stipulation, none of its esiential words should be omitted^ that it should not be stated as [91] 67 a general question of **vvhat is meant by being treatecJ on the footing ot the most favored nation," but as a special question of v\hat is mean^ by being treated as the most favored nation in tlit ports of Louisiana; for, when, upon a stipulation in these words you raise a claim to be treated in Louisiana on the footing of the most favored na- tiont in the ports of the United States^ and wiien, to support this claim to special favor in special places, resort is had to the argument that the whole includes all its parts, and that the generality embraces the specialty, what is this but interpreting that which has no need of interpretation? To us it appears not only so, but an interpretation as contrary to tlie manifest intention of the article, inferrible from its connection with the article immediately preceding, as to its letter, which is special in all its parts. Of the numerous extracts which you have taken the trouble of in- troducing in your letter of the 15th ult. from the speeches of indi= vidual members of Congress, reported in the National Intelligencer, as having been delivered at the debates on the passage of the laws for carrying the Louisiana treaties into execution, I regret not to have been able to discover ove which has any bearing whatever upon the question between us, which is of the tiue import of the eighth article of the treaty: they all have refeience to tiie seventh article — to the exclusive privileges which made France and Spain, for a limited term of twelve years, the must favored nations in the ports abovemen- tioned; and the objection was strongly urged that this stipulation was incompatible with the provision in the Constitution, which forbids any preference to he given by any regulation of commerce or reve- nue to the ports of one state over those of another. To this objec- tion, the speeches from which you liave cited passages, v\eie the an- swers; and they all distitictly assume the piinc-iple, that the prohibi- tive injunction of the Constitution was not incompatible with the stipulation of the treaty; because Louisiana was acquired, not as a state, but as a territory; so that, while she continued in the territo- rial or colonial condition, regulations of commerce different fiom those prescribed for the states of tlie Union, might be established in her ports, without contravening the Constitution; and there was not, in any one of those speeches, the intimation of a doubt, but that, when Louisiana should be admitted as astute into the Union, the re- gulations in her ports must be the same as in the ports of all her sis- ter states. But the third article of the treaty stipulated that "the inhabitants of the ce\ here, t icn, nd\e fcommitted any error? Perhaps it would have been more rigorously exTcT to h:;.'sa'id the tr.aii.s, instead of a/i the ^-^-' .--/-- ference was but to four treaties. But I would ask, sir, if that single "arwas of such moment as to fix so -peatedy your attend Sir I reneat it, all the treaties between France and the United states, a ;seinf understood, which could admit of such a ^l-s.^) oU^^e reaties between the United States and European "f •;"^' r^'"' ,7^' the treatment of the most favored nation is mentioned, stipulate that tslalbrredproca/; and on examining the other compacts beUven nat o^is, I find the same stipulation of reciprocal advantages ,n ever/ case! except where, as in tfie Louisiana treaty, there is some charge imposed by one party on the other, or a privilege reseiveU, 68 [91] Whence is it that one treaty, that of 1803, should alone mention, without reciprodtii, the treatment of the most favored nation? The reason becomes obvious, if we consider that it is the only treaty of the United States, sui generis^ wh'ch does not relate to commercial arrangements; a commercial convention grounded on expected con- tingencies, and stipulating mutual services and advantages, which do not require any advances, has no sort of analogy with a contract of saky a mere bargain. In this last case the vendor conveys his proper- ty to the vendee, who binds himself for the stipulated consideiation, consisting in the other clauses, charges, and conditions, of the bar- gain, as well as in the funds to be paid at hand, or by instalments; the right of the vendor, his only right, as you observed, sir, in 1803, is to require that the conditions stipulated be pnnctuallij and faithJ'uUy performed. This is all France desires; she has enjoyed, or might have enjoyed, during the space of twelve years, the right secured to her by the 7th article, and she now demands tlie fulfilment of the 8th article; which, as well as the 7th, is "a part of the price of the ter- ritory, a mere condition of the purchase.'' In your letter of the 15th you say, ** of the numerous extracts which you have taken the trouble of introducing in your letter of the i5th ult., from the speeches of indi- vidual njembers of Congress, repotted in the ^Vational Intelligencer, as having been delivered at the debates on ti»e passage of the laws for carrying the Louisiana treaties into execution, I regret not to have been able to discover one which has any hearing whatever upon the question between us, which is of the true import of the 8th article of the treaty; they all liave reference to the 7th." Suffei' me. sir, to observe, that in thus taking the trouble to cite these very respectable opinions, my principal object was to answer the following passage of your letter of the 15th of March: '* l^Vom the obvious purport of the 7th and Sth articles, it is apparent, that neither of them was considered in any respect as forming a part of the equiva- lent for the cession of Louisiana;" I was, therefore, right, in not se- parating them, when my object was to prove that neither of them was i^onsidered in any lespect as forming a j)art of the equivalents for the cession of Louisiana; and although the question of constitutionality cannot, in any case, concern France, it m as proper that I should es- tablish its having been completely settled in 1803; and that 1 was not alone of opinion that Louisiana was property ceded, *' ivith particular reservatiouj with a condition which the party ceding had a right to re- quire^ and to which the United States had a right to assent-" It makes but little difference what particular article of the treaty gave rise to the speeches cited, if they had a full bearing on the whole convention, and if every argument adduced on the 7th article is, a fortiori, appli- cable to the Sth. The 7th and Sth articles are both a part of the equivalents for the cession, or, rather, they are reservations of rights of property. — Fiance owed no reciprocity, and therefore it is that no reciprocity was stipulated on her part; it was no error or omission of the negotiators. [91] 69 I read, sir, in your letter of the ISth, *' in the latter part of your letter of the oOth of March, without abandoning this demand of exclusive favor, you seem to admit that the diminution of duties con- ceded to the vessels of several nations," in the ports of this Union, is not a favor but a bargain. — Now, sir, I admit nothing of the kind in my letter of the SOth — far from seeming to admit my expression, in tlie very phrase cited by you, sir, are Te ne saurois admetlre, 1 cannot admit. As to the question treated of in that letter, I shall confine myself to ex])ressing again my surprise, that France should be denied, in tlie ports of Ihe territory ceded by her, even those advantages which are granted to nations having no treaty or convention with the United States. Those nations, you say. sir, have passed no laws excluding the vessels of the United States from carrying to their ports the productions of their own soil, by the excessive aggravation of surcharges. To tiiis I shall answer, that France has done no such thing; and that lier dis- criminating duties are far from itaving ^operated Like magic in favor of the ship-owners of France, and have not even secured to her navi- gation a due share in the carrying trade. And, after -all, where is it stipulated that France shall be treated in Louisiana upon the footing of the most favored nation, (as by tlie 8th article) otily in case she shall make jio regulations on navigation injurious to the interest of the United States, or which might be suj)posed, contrary thereto? Is not every nation free to regulate her own commerce and navigation as she sees fit? If her laws amount to prohibitions, if tiicy appear unjust, if they are deemed injurious, it is, no (hjubt, aJlov.able to adopt similar countervailing measures; but such measures on her part can- not make it justifiable to lose sight of the respect due to a sacred right of property, which is absolute in its nature, and is inde])endent of all regulations of commerce and riavigation. — Observe, moreover, sir, that French vessels are not treated in the ports of Louisiana either upon the footing of the most favored nations i nor upon that of nations having no treoAy or convention witli the United States.,] nor even upon the footing of those in whose ports the vessels of the JJnited States are imt ordinarily permitted to go and trade. This requires no comment. You have stated, sir, that ail the speeches cited by me tend to prove that there was no inconsistency between the federal constitution and certain conditions of the treaty of cession, •• because Louisiana was acquired, not as a state, but as a territory: so that while she continued in the territorial or colonial condition, regulations of commerce differ- ent from those prescribed for the states of the Union, might be es- tablished in their ports, without contravening tlie constitution.?* — I have already answered this argument by stating the fact, that the 7th article, which, in your opinion, was judged to be compatible with •These extra charjjes were sufficient to drive from our ports the greatest propor- tion of the foreign tonnag-e. All foreign nations were afFected by the system we had adopted. It seemed to operate like magic in favor of the ship-owners of the United States. — (Dr. Seybert, on the American discriminating duties.} t American tonnnge law, article 1st. 70 [91] the Constitution, so long only as Louisiana should continue to be a colony, received its full execution during three years njter Louisiana had become a state. To tliis you reply, that in this there was, in truth, a violation of the Constitution, »< from which France lias received no wrong, and of which slic can have no motive to comjdain." But if we have adopted in Europe, as a monarchical principle, that the King can do norcrong^ we also expressly admit, with Mr. Griswold, that the Legislature cannot violate the Constitution, even for a day. I look upon it as cer- tain and indubitable, that Congress had not the desire, as it had not the power, to violate, intentionally, the Constitution, for a day, nor even for an hour. Besides, how can it be considered as a transient, inadvertent departure from the Constitution, that the unconstitutional execution of the 7th article should have place, not for a day, but for three years, while all the discussion which the speeches referred to had tended only to establish, that, in such case, tlierc would, in fact, be a violation of the Constitution? You add, sir, '"there was not, in any one of those speeches, the intimation of a doubt but that, when Louisiana should be admitted as a stateinto the Union, the regulations in her ports must be the same as in the ports of all her sister states;" and, in another part of your letter, you •* again repeat, that, by tlie admission of Louisiana into the Union, her ports became subject to that pro>ision of the Constitution which interdicts all preference to the ports of one state over those of another." I think I have shewn, that this article of the constitution is not, in any case, applicable to the express stipulations of a sale and convey- ance of property; and that it did not belong to France to examine that question. I could, perhaps, prove, also, that the two last assertions are not, in every point, rigorously correct. TS^i will find, sir, that, in those very speeches, it has been questioned whe^ier all the ports of the United States were, at that time, subject to the same commercial re- gulations. « By turning to our statute books, says Mr. Randolph, it will be perceived that, at ^jresent, there are some ports entitled to ben- efits which other ports do not enjoy.*' He shews, in another place, referring to a treaty between the United States and Great Britain, that several parts of the state of New York have a system of custom and duties peculiar to themselves; and "in this he says, gentlemen could not avail themselves of the distinction taken between a territory and state, even if they were so disposed, since the ports in question were ports of a State.* We see, besides, that Mr. Rodney's principal argument is ground- ed not on the article of the constitution mentioned by you, but on that which gives to Congress the ^ower to provide for the general tvelfare. * Mr. Randolph said that he did not mean to affirm that this exemption made by the treaty of London was constitutional; to solve that question was not his object; he would, hovever, observe, that France had a view in signing the treaty to ascer- tain whether all its articles were constitutional or not; since here, as well as else- where, the most enlightened men frequently disagree on certain points of legisl*- tion. [91] 71 Let us conclude from these various instances that the question of constitutionality is foreign to that which we now discuss; that it is of little moment to know whether a state may or may not modify its • administration of customs and duties; that even this point was dis- cussed in 1803; that, whether questioned or not, the right of France remains still the same, heoause it is a right of property, not a favor, but a bargain; and, finally, that the least doubtful point in all human trasactions, is the necessity of fulfilling punctually and faithfully all their conditions and stipulations. As to the memoir of Mr. Livingston, its object, in your opinion, sir, was to convince the Frencii Government that it was its interest, instead of taking possession of Louisiana, to put New Orleans into the hands of the United States. In the first place, 1 shall ask w4iat would then have become of the territory, and whether, in such case, Mr. Livingston's object, which was to prevent every collision, to remove every motive of rivalship between the two nations, would have been fully accomplished; but every discussion on that subject would, I think, be quite useless, the perusal of the memoir being sufficient alone to remove every doubt. Its very basis is this question: 'sequent declarations and efforts of the French Government would ^'"Tdrnot know to what subsequent ^^^^^'^-^^ion you allude In the first article of the treaty, it is expressly stated t^^f the 1 1 ench Gover men cedes Louisiana, - in order to give the Undcd Stat^ a re- mc^^kcZwoofofJn^^^^^^^^ In all these subsequent dec arations, I ndexpressioiV will and fnendly dispositions com- b ned vvith asense of justice from wliich even tr.er.dsh.p should neei depart' As to the efforts of the French Government, as you do not Sy them, nor indicate of what description they were, I w^sh to SsuYde myself, Sir, that you thereby allude to t^-e ei^oHs^ w h h on more than one important occasion, within the last toic}-tiu.8 y eaXFrallceh as taken a pleasure in iuaki«s to promote tUe,prosper:ty ^'Wha^ll^e ';:^1 motives which induced the French government not to retain Louisiana? 1 ^^ no othc.^ nor ^n ^j;^-- -;>.;^^ those expressed in the treaty, and therelore I f»>^^^ J/^^./^^',^ '" this point I can, however, assert that^France ;^;^V,^ , .^^^f! ^^^^J Droved that she could do much for her triends, and had little t.aiot her enen £. For this reason, -the opinion so JorcM^ urged m the Il'nrof Mr. Livingston, has -^-^^^}^^'^,'i:^r:Z:!::Z mind, and, if such a question were no irrelevant *« the^]^^^ c'^^ «^ .^ ject of discussion, I believe that I could easily shew tl^^^^^' ^"'^I'J'^^ have retained her territory of Louisiana, as well in war as in ,>tare I cannot conchide better than hy citmg, in support of m.v caus^^ the words of a celebrated statesman, whose «1'>";«"^. . ^'I^;^^^'^^^^^^ had occasion to quote, and must he received as authorstj e.e.> NNhtie, and on every occasion. Omnian of Mr. Madison in 1794. « The fifteenth article, Mr. Chairman has ^'-^Her eyraordmary feature, whi.ch I should imagine "^"«^f '•V'''r'''^.f"thrmos't f- o d treaties which profess to put us on the footing of the most lavoi.a nation it is s pulated that, where new favors are granted to a part - cular nation return for favors received, the party clanumg the new tZ ^:^ll llay the price of it. This is Just and P-l- ^;!;- ^ footine:«f the most favored "^tion is establ.s^ied at a • tide gives to Great Britain the ful benefit ^^«.'' f T^'^'^.^/'^^^^^ be granted to any other nation, without requiring from hti the «» « ellulalenrprivilJges with thosegrantedby such uation^^^l^^^^ liappen, that if Spain, Portugal, or France ^l^ould u th ; i.ial ports to the United States, in consideration of ^^ ta n puule cs In ourtiade, the same privileges would result gratis and ipsopcto to Great Britain.* .-,»•, i-aT ' 'Mr Madison's speech, Xk'lUsh Tirntj'. t>ni .\pv,!, 1. y~ ■■■• '^, y* 74 [91] The present claim of France is tlie same, or rather it is better, since it j2;rov\'s not out of a Commercial Convention, but out of a con- tract of sale, and since France has, in fact, already paid for her pri- vilege, while Eti.2;land, in the instance cited, would have given no consideration; still, however, Mr. Madison says that England must, by the terms of the article, obtain ^raizs and ipso facto eveiy right or privilege granted to any other nation, whether gratidtously or for an equivalent. From all which 1 conclude, sir, that France has a right to enjoy gratis and ipso facto the privilege reserved to her by the 8th article of the Louisiana treaty. When so able an advocate as Mr. Madison has taken up my de- fence, I need say no more. I have honor to be, &c. &c. G. HYDE DE NEUVILLE. No. 20. Baron de JVeuxille to the Secretary of State, "Washington, October 15, 182U [transiation.] Sir: I have I'cccived fresh instructions from my Government re- quiring me to insist upon the execution of the 8tb article of the Lou- isiani treaty, or to demand at least that, in the mean time, our ship- ping be made to enjoy, in the ports of tlie Territory ceded by France, all "the privileges and advantages which are granted in the same ports to such nations as have no treaty or convention with the United States. On this subject I must again refer to my letter of the 30th of March last. Considering, however, that, at the date of these instructions, my Govermnent was not informed of the present state of the negotia- tion^, and being solicitous to make all possible exertion for the removal of every difticulty to the negotiation, I have the honor again to pro- pose (in case you should i>ersist in your opinion on the Louisiana question, as I adhere to mine,) that we enter into the agreement sug- gested in my letter of June 30th, and 3d of August. Accept, &c. &c. &c. G. HYDE DE NEUVILLE. No. 21. Extract of a letter (No. 253j from Mr. Gallatin to Mr. Mams, dated 24f/j September, 1822. «»e of a date posterior to that of the claims. All the representations which His Majesty's Government lias made to that of the United States, wfteljher on private or on public subjects, have uniformly been taken into consideration, and i-eccived that at- tention to which they were so justly entitled. In no instance has the Government of the United States declined to open a discussion on any subject thus offered to tiieir consideration by France, or made it a preliminary condition, tjjat tiic discussion should also embi'ace some other subject in which they might happen to take a greater interest. The question respecting the 8th article ot the Louisiana treaty has, in particular, been the subject of a voluminous correspondence, in the course of wliich, the arguments in support of the construction insist- ed on by each party, respectively, Mere made known to the other. I have, in the meanwliile, for six years, made unceasing application to His Majesty's Government for the settlement of claims to a vast amount, affecting the interest of numerous individuals, and arising from flagrant violations of the law of nations and of the rights of the United States, without having ever been able to obtain, to this day, satisfaction, in a single instance, or even that the subject should be taken into consideration and discussed. After so many vexatious de- lays, for which diftcrent causes have, at different times, beeji assigned, it cannot now be intended again to postpone the investigation of that subject, by insisting that it should be treated in connection with one foreign to it, and which has already been discussed. The United States have, at least, the right to ask that their demands should also 7« [94] he examined anil disciisscil, and I trust that since 1 am authorized to treat as well concerning the claims of French suhjects against the United States, as respecting those of American citizens against France, a distinct negotiatijon to that effect will be opened without anj further delay. Permit me, at the same time, to renew to your Excellency the as- surances that the United States liaA e the most earne,st desire that every subject of difference between the two countries should be ami- cably arranged, and their commercial and political relations placed on the most friendly and solid footing. They will be reatiy to open again negotiations on the subject of the 8th article of the Louisiana treaty, and on every other which remains to be adjusted, and will have no objection that the seat of those negotiations should be trans- ferred from Washington to this place. Although my powers to treat respecting every subject connected -witli the commerce, of the two countiies may embrace that of a consii- lar convention, yet, as this had not been contemplated by my Govern- ment, I am not, at this time, prepared to conclude an arrangement for that purpose. I re(|uest your Excellency to accept the assurance, kc. ALBERT GALLATIN. No. 23. JUr. Gallatin to My. ^dams, J^o. 237. Paris, \9th JVovemher, 1822. Sir : I received last night, and have the honor to enclose a copy of Mr. de Villele's answer, (dated ISth inst.) to my letter of the 12th. You will perceive that, without taking any notice of the reasons I had urged, why a distinct negotiation should be immediately opened, on the subject of the claims against both Governments: he insists that this shall be treated in C()nnection with the question respecting the construction of the 8th article of the Louisiana treaty. The object is too obvious to require any comments on my part and this final de- cision leaves me no other course than to refer the whole to my Go- vernment. I have the honor to be, with great respect, sir, your most obedient servant. ALBERT GALLATIN. [91] 79 No. 23 — a. Mr. de Villele to Mr. Gallatiiu [teaxslation.} Paris, I5th JS'^ovemher, 1822. Sib : You have done me the honor to announce to me, on the 1 2tla oftliis month, that you were autlioiized to negotiate a convention, re- lative to the claims of Ameiican citizens against France, and to those of France against the United Stales; but that you have received no power to enter upon a negotiation concerning the interpretation, of the 8th Article of the Louisiana Treaty. The discussions which have ensued upon this last point between your Government and the Minister Pltnipotentiriry of the King, to the United States, having come to nothing, and this question letnain- ing thus undecided, it is as projKJr as it is just to renew the examin- ation of it: it touches upon too great interests not to be treated with renewed attention, and to be abandoned. If a new arrangement takes place for the claims which are still in question, it ought to embi'ace them ail, and the desire of the King's Go- vernment is to permit no difficulty to remain, and to leave nothing un- decided in the relations of the two countries. With this very motive, sir, I have demanded in the letter which I had the honor of addressing to you on the Gth of this month, that the negotiation to be opened upon the respective claims, should likewise include a consular convention. If your powers for discussing these diffeient points should not appear to you sufficiently extended, for making them the (tbject of a negotiation, I thirik, sir, that you will judge it proper to demand of your Government supplementary autho- rity, for coming to an arrangement which can only have the utility proposed by the two Governments, by its embracing all the questions and claims which are still in dispute. I can only refer, sir, upon this subject to the communications which I have had the honor of making to you on the Gth of this month, and with which you have doubtless made your Government acquainted. Accept, sir, the assurance of my high consideration. The Minister of Finance, charged ad interim with the Port Folio of Foreign Affairs. JH. J)e VILLELE, No 24. Mr. Gallatin to Mr. Adams, A'o. 241. Paris, 5th January, 1823. SiK: I had, after his return from Verona, a conversation with the Duke of Montmorency, on oiir claims, S complained in strong terms 80 [91] of the decision taken by Mr. de Yillele, and said, that his insisting to connect that subject with tlie discussi»n respecting the construction of the 8th article of the Louisiana treaty, would be considered in the United States as an attemj)t to avoid altogether the payment of the indemnities due to our citizens. I then stated, that the reluctance evinced by the Government of France, to make a general arrange- ment on that subject, had induced the President to autliorize me to make a separate application for the Antwerp claims; that what had now taken place, afforded an additional proof of the difficulties which stood in the way of a general transaction; and that, whilst this seem- ed indefinitely postponed, I hoj)e(l tliat tlie special application would at least be attended to, and receive a favorable decision. The Duke, after some general observations on the earnest desire of France, that all the subjects of difference between the two coun- tries should be definitively arranged, and declaring that this was the only motive for insisting on a negotiation embracing all those points, said that to take up at this time any special claim, appeared to jiim inconsistent witii the official communication made to me by Mr. de Villele, and that we must wait at least tilljl had received an answer from my Government, to whom 1 must of course have transmitted the cor- respondence. He promised, however, to lay my request before the King's council, but without giving me any expectation that it would be favorably received. It is probable that even this has been prevented by the Duke's re- signation, which took place a few days after our conversation; and I think it quite useless to renew, at this time, the application to his successor Mr. de Chateaubriand. I will therefore wait till I Veceive your instructions in answer to my several despatches on this sub- ject. I have the honor to be, With great respect, sir, Your most obedient servant, ALBERT GALLATIN No. 23. Mr. Gallalin to Mr. Adams. A'o. 250.' V Aiiis,. 27 ih February, 1825. Sir: I had designedly abstained from answering Mr. de Villcle*s last letter, of the 15th of November, in order to be able to avail my- self of any change in the ministry, or of any otlier favorable circum- stance which might arise. The more I have reflected on the ground assumed by this Government, on the subject of our chiitr.s, and on the attempt to connect their discussion with the question ai'ising under the eighth article of the Louisiana treaty, the more I have felt satisfied [91] 81 that it was impossible that the United States should depart from the true construction of that article, and acquiesce in that contended for by France, and that a renewed discussion on that subject would be unprofitable, and lead to no result whatever. As a last, but I be- lieve, unavailing effort, I have concluded to express that conviction to the French Government, and have, accordingly, addressed, this day, to Mr. Chateaubriand the letter of which I have tlie honor to enclose a copy. I have no doubt that there is not at tliis time any disposition to do us justice, and that if we were even to make some concessions, with respect to the article abovememtioned, we could not succeed in making an arrangement, on the subject of the claims, satisfactory to the par- ties, or such as the Government of the United States would feel justi- fied to accej)t. With that view of the subject, it appears to me evi- dent that it is less disadvantageous to let the question rest for the pre- sent as it is, than to entangle ourselves by consenting to blend it with the discussion of the Louisiana treaty; whilst, on the other hand, the communication of this determination, coming from me, before any specific instructions can have been received from you, is less pei-emp- tory than if founded on these instructions, does not commit Govern- ment, and leaves the United States at liberty to resume, at a more fa- vorable time, the negotiation on the ground which may then appear most eligible. Independent of unforeseen circumstances which may alter the dis- positions of this Government, I can perceive but one mode calculated to produce some effect. It is that the parties interested should peti- tion Congress, and that there should be some marked expression of the sentiments of that body in their favor. The apathy of the great mass of the claimants, and the silence preserved in that respect, dur- ing so many years, in all our public discussions, have, undoubtedly, produced here the impression that very little interest was felt oji that subject, and, in some degree, contributed in rendering our efforts to obtain Justice unavailing. I have the honor to be, With gi'eat respect, sir, Your most obedient servant, ALBERT GALLATIN. No. 25. — a. Mr. Gallatin to Viscount de Chateaubriand. Paris, Q7th February, 1823. Sik: I had the honor to receive H. E. Count de Villele's letter of the 15th of November last, by which, notwithstanding the remonstrances n 32 C 91 3 contained in mine ot'the 1 2th, H. E. being at that time charged with the Department of Foreign Affairs, still insisted that the discussion of the claims of individuals of both nations upon'the two govern- ments, respectively, should not take place unless it was connected with a renewed negotiation on the 8th article of the Louisiana treaty. A conversation I had the honor to have with H. E. the Duke de Montmorency after his return from V«rona, induced me to hope al- though he did not encourage any expectation of a different result, that he would however again lay the subject before his majesty's council of ministers. This circumstance, the subsequent change in the department of foreign affairs, and the objects of primary impor- tance which have heretofore necessarily engrossed your excellency's attention, have prevented an earlier official answer to H. E. Count e ports of those nations, not being a favor but a mere act of reciprocity. Let me also, observe^ that the pretension of France would, if ad- mitted, leave no alternative to the United States than either to suffer the whole commerce between France and Louisiana to be carried ex- clusively in French vessels, or to renounce the right of making ari'angements with other nations, deemed essential to our prosperity, and having for object not to lay restrictions on commerce but to remove them. If the meaning of the 8th article of the Louisiana treaty was such indeed as has been contended for on the part of France, the United States, bound to fulfil their engagements, must submit to the consequences, whatever these might be: but this having been proven not to be the case, the observation is made only to show tliat the United States never can, either for the sake of obtaining indem- nities for their citizens, or from their anxious desire to settle, by con- ciliatory arrangements, all their differences with France, be brought to acquiesce in the erroneous construction put upon the article in ques- tion. The proposal made by H. E. Mr. de Villele, in his letter of tlic 6th of November, and reiterated in that of the 15th, can therefore have no other effect than to produce unnecessary delays, and would, if i)ersisted in, be tantamount to an indefinite postponement of the examination and settlement of the claims of the citizens of the United States. It will remain for his Majesty's Government to decide whether this de- termination be consistent with justice, whether the reclamations of private individuals should be thus adjourned because the two Govern- ments happen to difier in opinion on a subject altogether foreign to those claims. Having nothing to add to my reiterated and unavailing applications on that subject, my only object at this moment has been to show that I cannot expect any instructions from my Government that will alter the state of the question. I request your Excellency to accept the assurance, Sec. ALBERT GALLATIN. 84 L9i] No. 26. Mr. Brown to M}\ Adams, JNl). 17. Paris, JVor. 29, 1824. Sir: Not having receivetl any ansMcr to the letter which, on the 22(1 ultimo, I addressed to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, 1 sent liim a note requesting that lie would favor nic with a conference at as early a day as his co)iveniencev\ould pei'mit, and received his answer appointing the 25 ih instant for that purpose. i waited upon him at the appointed hour, and after an interchange of the customary salutations, 1 reminded him that I had signitied to him my wish to converse fieely with him on the suhject of the claims of American citizens on the Government of France, and that the state of my health alone had prevented me from asking a conference on that topic prior to the transmission of my tetter of the 22d ultimo. I then, in a concise manner, called his attention to the state of the negotiation, and expressed my hope that the Frencli Government \vould no longer arrest the progress of the discussion by insisting on ronnectiug it with tiie question arising out of the 8th article of the Louisiana treaty. The two subjects, I contended, weie entirely dissimilar in their nature: and, thej'efore, could not, with any degree of propriety, be embi-accd in liie same discussion. In the one case, American citizens ask indemnity for their property, which has been taken from them under the g,uthority of the Frencli Govenmient, and in opposition to the plainest principles of law and justice; in the other, the Governments of the United States and France.disagree in their coiistruction of an article in a treaty which has no relation to the question of claims. The justice of tlie claims of American citi- zens has never ])een denied by France, whilst the United States have not hitiierto see!i any reason to admit that France lias any just claim under the 8th article of the Louisiana treaty. I asked him whether it was either just or reasoiuible that these claims should remain un- satisfied until the two Governments could agree in theii- interpreta- tion of the treaty? Although the United States have been always ready to continue to discuss with France the question on the treaty, yet they cannot consent to connect it with claims for indejiinity. I reminded him, that, in evcrj^ instance in which France had presented a claim, either on behalf of the Government or her citizens, founded on any siipjjosed injury done by the United States, the claim had been carefully considered, without entangling it with any other ques- tion, and, when well founded, had been admitted and settled; that the United States had a right to expect a corresponding course of fair conduct on the part of France, and, therefore, had seen with deep regret, the ground assumed in the present instance, and the delay consequent upon it. I concluded by expressing a hope ti)at the nego- tiation for our claims, so long suspended, would lie resumed, and re- peated the offer already made, to embrace, in the same negotiation, any claims on the part of French subjects, against the Government of tlte United States. [91] 85 The Baron fle Danias replied, that the time which had elapsed since he had been placed at the head of the Department of Foreign Affairs, had been so short, and his immediate and indispensable du- ties so numerous, that he had not been able to make himself acquainted with the subject; that the correspondence was voluminous^ and that, with the most earnest desire to answer my letter, he had not hitherto had the necessary time allowed him to give it even a cursory perusal; that, being unacquainted with the subject, he could not discuss it with me on equal ground, but that he hoped very shortly to give it a careful examination, and to send me a definitive answer. I asked him if I could liope for it in time to send by the next vessel. He said that he could not promise to send me an answer the next week, nor could he precisely say at what tiaie I might expect it, but that I should have it as soon as he could find time to prepare it. I assigned as a reason for wishing to be furnished with an early answer, the call made on the President by the House of Representatives at the last session. He said, he was already informed of the proceedings of that branch of our Legislature, and felt every disposition to bring the questions of dif- ference between tlie two countries to a close as speedily as possible. The conference here terminated without the attainment of the object which induced me to ask it. I do not know at what precise time I may expect an answer to my letter, nor can I anticipate, from any thing which passed at the interview, what will be the nature of the ajjswer which I may receive. I have the honor to be, with great respect, sir. Your most obedient and very humble servant, JAMES BROWN. ^^jtiM^^^. icf^;^^