declared that "it was not until a majority of the Board had proceeded to establish a system of rules for the government of their future decisions, which, in the opinion of this Government, clearly comprehended a vast mass of cases never submitted to their consideration, that it was deemed necessary to terminate proceedings believed to be totally unauthorized, and which were conducted in terms and in a spirit only calculated to destroy all harmony between the two nations." He therefore instructed Mr. King, if it should be found impossible to negotiate a reasonable explanatory article, to endeavor to agree on a gross sum to be received as full compensation for all the claims of the creditors.1 Negotiations for Settlement. At one time Lord Grenville thought of sending out "confidential characters" to America for the purpose of facilitating the execution of the treaty, with an eventual appointment as commissioners. He was not inclined either to negotiate a new convention or to discuss the question of a lump sum. He at length decided, however, very wisely, to try the latter alternative. In December 1800 Mr. King presented to him a paper in which it was estimated that the claims against the United States would not properly exceed £400,000. This result was arrived at by assuming that the amount of the debts due at the outbreak of the war was equal to the average amount of British exports to the colonies in one year prior to that event, which was estimated at £2,311,498. From this amount Mr. King deducted one-half on the score of what British creditors lost in consequence of the insolvency of debtors, caused by the war and especially by the operation of paper money, from the beginning to the end of the conflict. This left £1,155,749. As in the majority of States, including the large commercial towns, creditors had experienced no material difficulty in recovering their debts, it was reasonable, said Mr. King, to deduct half of that sum as recovered since the war, leaving £577,874 unrecovered. To this sum, however, he added interest, thus doubling it and restoring the amount due to £1,155,749. Of this he estimated that creditors could, in the existing unobstructed course of justice, recover two-thirds, leaving not more than £400,000 due from the United States. 1 Mr. Marshall to Mr. King, August 23, 1800, Am. State Papers, For. Rel. II. 383, 386, 387. 2 Am. State Papers, For. Rel. II. 390-400. By an analytical statement of the claims submitted to the board in Philadelphia, it appears that their gross amount was £5,638,692 8s. 1d., which was calculated to be equivalent to $24,809,969.37. It was admitted, however, that, as always happens in such circumstances, the amounts of the several claims were in many instances enormously exaggerated, and the British Government offered to accept between a million and two million pounds. On the 15th of June 1800 Mr. Madison, who had become Secretary of State, instructed Mr. King that not more than £600,000 would be paid,' and, after long and complicated negotiations in which John Anstey assisted on the part of Great Britain,2 the British Government consented to accept that sum, if satisfactory terms could be arranged for its payment, and recourse to the courts be secured to creditors for the future. ary 8, 1802. Various projects of a convention on these Convention of Janu- lines were exchanged, but it was not until January 8, 1802, that one was concluded. On that day Lord Hawkesbury and Mr. King signed a convention by which Article VI. of the treaty of 1794 was annulled, and the sum of £600,000, payable at Washington in three equal annual installments, and in money of the United States reckoned at $4.44 to the pound sterling, was accepted in satisfaction of what the United States might have been liable to pay under that article. This sum, amounting to $2,664,000 was duly appropriated and paid. The Secretary of the Treasury was authorized to cause the last installment to be paid in London." By Article II. of the convention, Article IV. of the treaty of peace, so far as respected its future operation, was confirmed, so that creditors on either side should in the future "meet with no lawful impediments to the recovery of the full value in sterling money of their bona fide debts."6 1 Am. State Papers, For. Rel. II. 389. 2 Am. State Papers, For. Rel. II. 401-418. 3 Am. State Papers, For. Rel. II. 421–427. 42 Stats. at L. 192; Am. State Papers, For. Rel. II. 62, 67. Act of March 3, 1805, 2 Stats. at L. 336. 6 For appropriations to carry Article VI. of the treaty of 1794 into effect, see the following acts: May 6, 1796, $80,808 (for Articles VI. and VII.), 1 Stats. at L. 460: March 2, 1799, $26,000, Id. 723; May 7, 1800, $52,556, 2 Id. 66; April 18, 1806, $7,750, Id. 389. CHAPTER X. THE RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF NEUTRALS: COMMISSION UNDER ARTICLE VII. OF THE JAY TREATY. Belligerent Pretensions: French Decrees. The first war between Great Britain and France growing out of the French Revolution was characterized, as were other great European struggles of the last and the beginning of the present century, by exorbitant pretensions on the part of the belligerent powers to regulate and control the trade of neutrals. By a decree of the National Convention of May 9, 1793, the commanders of French ships of war and privateers were "authorized to seize and carry into the ports of the republic, merchant vessels which are wholly or in part laden with provisions, being neutral property, bound to an enemy's port, or having on board merchandise belonging to an enemy." Merchandise belonging to the enemy was declared to be "lawful prize, seizable for the profit of the captor." Provisions, if belonging to a neutral, were to be "paid for at the price they would have sold for at the port whither they were bound;" the vessels, if neutral, were to be released as soon as the provisions found on board should have been landed, or the seizure of the merchandise effected; freight was in such case to be settled at the rate paid by the charterer, and proper compensation to be granted by the tribunals for the detention of the vessels. From this decree, however, the National Convention, hopefully looking to the United States as an "ally" in the war, by another decree of the 23d of May declared American vessels to be exempt. In communicating these decrees to the Government of the United States in September 1793 M. Genet, the French minister, declared that the considerations which prompted the second decree were, on the one hand, a disposition on the part of France scrupulously to observe the treaties with the United States, and on the other "the thorough confidence she has that the Americans will not abuse this privilege by carrying to her enemies those productions by which they ought to assist in the defense of a cause as much their own as hers." At the same time he said he was "informed that the English Government have declared their determination to carry into the English ports all the American vessels laden with provisions for the ports of France." The French republic expected that the United States would "hasten to take the most energetic measures to procure a recall of this decision;" and if the measures taken to that end should prove to be "insufficient or fruitless," and the neutrality of the United States, as had previously been the case, "serviceable" only to "the enemies of France," France would "exercise a very natural right in taking measures to prevent a consequence so injurious to her.”1 Order in Council, The determination of the British Government to which M. Genet referred was embodied in an order in council issued on the 8th of June 1793. By this order the commanders of His Majesty's ships of war and privateers were authorized "to stop and detain all vessels loaded wholly or in part with corn, flour, or meal, bound to any port in France, or any port occupied by the armies of France, in order that such corn, meal, or flour may be purchased on behalf of His Majesty's government, and the ships be released after such purchase and after a due allowance for freight," or in order that the masters of such ships might, on giving due security, "be permitted to dispose of their cargoes of corn, meal, or flour, in the ports of any country in amity with His Majesty." 2 1 M. Genet to Mr. Jefferson, Sec. of State, September 27, 1793. (Am. State Papers, For. Rel. I. 243-244.) 2 The text of the order is as follows: "GEORGE R. (L. S.) "Additional instructions to the Commanders of His Majesty's Ships of War, and Privateers that have or may have Letters of Marque against France. Given at our Court at St. James's, the Eighth Day of June, 1793, in the Thirty-third Year of our Reign. "I. That it shall be lawful to stop and detain all Ships loaden wholly or in part with Corn, Flour, or Meal, bound to any Port in France, or any Port occupied by the Armies of France, and to send them to such Ports as shall be most convenient, in order that such Corn, Meal, or Flour may be purchased on behalf of His Majesty's Government, and the Ships be released after such Purchase and after a due Allowance for Freight; or that the Masters of such Ships on giving due Security, to be approved of by the Court of Admiralty, be permitted to proceed to dispose of their Cargoes These instructions, though dated the 8th of June, were not issued to the admiralty till the 28th of the month. The British Government assumed to justify them on the ground that "by the law of nations, as laid down by the most modern writers," and particularly by Vattel, all provisions were to be considered as contraband, and as such liable to confiscation, in the case where "the depriving an enemy of these supplies is one of the means intended to be employed for reducing him to reasonable terms of peace." "The actual situation of France," said Great Britain, "is notoriously such as to lead to the employing this mode of distressing her by the joint operations of the different powers engaged in the war; and the of Corn, Meal, or Flour, in the Ports of any Country in Amity with His Majesty. "II. That it shall be lawful for the Commanders of His Majesty's Ships of War and Privateers that have, or may have Letters of Marque against France to seize all Ships, whatever be their Cargoes, that shall be found attempting to enter any Blockaded Port, and to send the same for Condemnation, together with their Cargoes, except the Ships of Denmark and Sweden, which shall only be prevented from entering on the first attempt, but on the second shall be sent in for Condemnation likewise. "III. That in case His Majesty shall declare any Port to be Blockaded, the Commanders of His Majesty's Ships of War and Privateers that have, or may have Letters of Marque against France, are hereby enjoined if they meet with Ships at Sea, which appear from their Papers to be destined to such Blockaded Port, but to have sailed from the Ports of their respective Countries before the Declaration of the Blockade shall have arrived there to Advertise them thereof, and to Admonish them to go to other Ports, but they are not to molest them afterwards, unless it shall appear that they have continued their Course with intent to enter the Blockaded Port, in which Case they shall be subject to Capture and Condemnation; as shall likewise all Ships, wheresoever found, that shall appear to have sailed from their Ports, bound to any Port which His Majesty shall have declared to be Blockaded, after such Declaration shall have been known in the Country from which they sailed; and all Ships, which in the course of the Voyage shall have received Notice of the Blockade, in any manner, and yet shall have pursued their Course with intent to enter the same. "G. R." The exception in the second paragraph of this order in favor of ships of Denmark and Sweden was based on special treaty stipulations with those powers. (Am. State Papers, For. Rel. I. 240.) The text above given is taken from an apparently authentic copy of the order in the records of the commission under Article VII. It substantially accords with the text printed in Am. State Papers, For. Rel. I 240. 1 1 Mr. Pinckney to the Sec. of State, July 5, 1793. (Am. State Papers, For. Rel. I. 241.) |