so many merely speculative petitions, as is illustrated by duplicate and even triplicate petitions being filed, that the number of petitions can not be a safe basis of calculation. The amount awarded upon the petitions tried and the proportion of those awards to the amount claimed do furnish a reliable basis of calculation; and from these it is shown by the statement of the court, based upon its official records, that more than one-half in amount of all the petitions filed has been tried, and thereon awards made for a little more than $3,000,000 only. In the court's response to your committee it is stated that "In the course of the trials the court has decided several cases on general principles which affect classes of cases, and they have also adopted rules of decision which materially limit the extent of possible recovery in many others." And the court has furnished copies of eight important decisions fully illustrating this statement, which are made an appendix to this report. With all the information possibly attainable before it, and after a careful and thorough examination of the best evidence on the subject, your committee is of the opinion that not much, if at all, short of one-half of all that will be allowed upon these claims has now been reported to Congress, and on this a very considerable proportion has already been paid. To every one who has taken the pains to investigate the question, it is beyond doubt that the release of these claims to France as an offset to those made by her against our Government for a failure to keep the treaty of 1778 is all that has ever been paid to France for her contribution to the achievement of our independence. The claims of these citizens were recognized by the French ministers throughout the negotiations as valid. The sole and only defense set up was the discount of our national liability for failure to meet our obligations under the treaty of 1778. They were released to pay the national obligation. After 85 years of entreaty for payment Congress sent them to the Court of Claims. The court has declared that some few of them constitute valid obligations, and now to refuse longer to pay such as the court has thus found is a reflection on the honor of a great country, for it is in principle as well as practical repudiation. Clearly, if the decision of the court had been against the validity of the claims as an obligation of the United States, Congress would have availed itself, and most properly, of that as a reason for refusing absolutely to pay any portion thereof. Now, since the court to which Congress has referred them by a formal statute has decided that some of them constitute "valid obligations of the United States,' can there be any doubt that Congress should pay all such as are included in that decision? For the foregoing reasons your committee reports the bill back to the House, with the recommendation that it do pass. APPENDIX A. Reply of Court of Claims to Committee on Claims. COURT OF CLAIMS, Washington, D. C., January 12, 1894. SIR: To your communication in relation to House bill No. 4006 we have to make the following reply: The annexed tables, marked Exhibits A and B, taken from the records of the court, will furnish you definite information as to the number of the different claims which have been passed upon by the court, the number of vessels upon which they were made, the amounts claimed in the cases on each vessel, and the amounts allowed thereon. To go through the records of the court to furnish the same data as to the unadjudicated cases would involve a greater amount of clerical labor than can possibly be given to it by the limited force at the command of the court. The information, however, would not be very valuable, as the amounts claimed in the petitions form no basis of the recovery, and are usually largely in excess of the awards. In addition to this fact there are a great many claims indeed, whole classes of them-in which petitions have been filed by two, and even three, different parties. From the beginning, the court has adopted the rule of trying all the cases upon, or growing out of, the seizure of one vessel together, which, besides other manifest advantages, precludes the possibility of the allowance of a duplicate claim. In reply to your inquiry whether any general principles have been settled which affect classes of claims, we have to say that in the course of the trials, the court has decided several cases on general principles which affect classes of cases, and they have also adopted rules of decisions which materially limit the extent of possible recovery in many others. We refer you to the following decisions (copies of which are herewith enclosed): Schooner Nancy, Putnam, master, 27 C. Cls., 98. Brig Caroline Wilmans, Jones, master, 27 C. Cls., 215. It is proper to add that the time for filing petitions expired while the commissioners appointed under the act of January 20, 1885, to procure records, was abroad, and that a great many petitions were then filed, upon which no evidence has been produced. Respectfully, WILLIAM A. RICHARDSON, Chief Justice. APPENDIX B. Admitted facts in French spoliation claims. CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN HON. BENJAMIN H. BUNN AND HON. CHARLES H. MANSUR. ROCKY MOUNT, March 15, 1893. MY DEAR SIR: As a member of the Committee on Claims, to which the findings of the Court of Claims in regard to French spoliation claims have heretofore been referred, you have, for several years past, given close consideration to their history and merits, and to the opinions and judgment of the court in regard to them, and your speeches and reports show such thorough study of the questions involved that many of the Members of the House have come to look upon you as an authority on this subject. I have several constituents, and there are many people in my State who are interested in these claims, their ancestors having been direct sufferers by the spoliations by the French, and I feel great interest in securing their settlement as a matter of justice and right, since the Government, by releasing them to France in payment of our own obligations to that country under the treaty of 1778, used this private property for public purposes, without just compensation. It has occurred to me that a statement or summary of the admitted and salient facts in regard to the origin and validity of these claims as obligations of the United States prepared by you would be of great service, and I hope it will not be asking too much that at your early convenience you will furnish me with such a statement, in order that I may hereafter make public use of it. I know that such a statement prepared by you would be very valuable, and I am not unmindful that it is a great deal to ask of you, but it will be doing me, and through me many of my constituents and residents of my State, a great favor if you can find the leisure to accomplish it. Very sincerely, yours, Hon. CHARLES H. MANSUR, B. H. BUNN. Washington, D. C. WASHINGTON, D. C., April 10, 1893. DEAR SIR: Your favor of date March 15, 1893, at hand. Complying with your request that I prepare "a summary of the admitted or salient facts in regard to the origin and validity of French spoliation claims as obligations of the United States," I herewith send you an article, with all citations of authorities verified, under the caption of "Admitted facts in French spoilation claims.” I am, sir, very sincerely, yours, Hon. BENJAMIN H. BUNN, Rocky Mount, N. C. C. H. MANSUR. The depredations out of which the claims against the Federal Government originated were committed during the period of time beginning in the year 1793 and prior to September 30, 1800. The facts may be briefly stated as follows: STATEMENT. In the darkest hours of the American Revolution-in February, 1778-the colonies entered into two treaties with France, by which France agreed to recognize and guarantee their sovereignty and independence, and in return therefor the colonies conceded to France certain special port privileges whether in time of peace or war guarantied to her the ownership of her possessions in the West Indies, and agreed to furnish certain aid and assistance whenever these possessions were assailed by any enemy of France, especially England. France furnished nearly 20,000 troops and a navy of 36 war vessels, and expended 1,400,000,000 francs in behalf of the colonies. She complied fully with all the terms of the treaties, on her part, to be performed. Shortly after the close of the Revolution there sprang up in America what was known as the "English Party," animated mainly by three considerations, viz, our want of manufactures, a desire to renew commerce with the then greatest manufacturing and commercial people on the globe, and the natural ties of blood, birth, and a common ancestry. The English party finally dominated the Government, and in 1794, by the famous Jay treaty, we gave to England the same exclusive rights and interests in our ports which we had guaranteed in perpetuity in France in 1778. In 1793 an armed coalition of the main European powers, under the leadership of England, was made against France, which powers took the resolution of shutting all their ports against French ships and not permitting the exportation to France of grain, salt meat, and other provisions. Crops in France had failed that year, a frightful civil war was raging, and all Europe was in arms against her as a punishment for beheading her king, Louis XVI. Under these circumstances, driven by stress of famine, in 1793, France committed minor depredations upon American commerce. The feeling was intensified by the proclamation of the Jay treaty in 1794, whereon France held the United States to be perfidious, and began a sweeping onslaught upon American vessels on the high seas. Out of these depredations originated the negotiations which finally eventuated in the treaty of September 30, 1800, to end the "differences" which existed between the two countries, the main contention being the demand of the United States that France should respond in damages for the injuries done to our citizens by the spoilation of their vessels and cargoes on the high seas, France on her part declaring her willingness to so respond when the United States should recognize and compensate the national claim of France for the deprivation and taking away of the special port privileges given to England under the Jay treaty and the refusal of the United States to come to her aid and assistance in defending her possessions in the West Indies when assailed by England, whereby she lost 11 fertile islands and her colony on the mainland in little more than a month's time, without being furnished any aid whatever, even after demand made on the United States. THE TREATY OF 1800. The treaty or convention of September 30, 1800, begins with this language: "The premier consul of the French Republic, in the name of the people of France, and the President of the United States of America, equally desirous to terminate the differences which have arisen between the two States. Thus it will be observed that this was not a treaty or convention to terminate a state of war, but simply "differences which have arisen between the two States." This treaty or convention was ratified at Washington by John Adams, President, and John Marshall, acting as Secretary of State, on February 18, 1801, after omitting the second article, which they declared "to be expunged and of no force or validity. Afterwards, on July 31, 1801, Napoleon and his ministers, Talleyrand and Maret, approved said convention as follows: "The Senate of the United States did, by their resolution of February 3, 1801, consent to and advise the ratification of the convention: Provided, The second article be expunged, and that the following article be added or inserted: 'It is agreed that the present convention shall be in force for the term of eight years from the time of the exchange of the ratifications.' "Bonaparte, First Consul, in the name of the French people, consented on July 31, 1801, 'to accept, ratify, and confirm the above convention with the addition importing that the convention shall be in force for the space of eight years, and with the retrench ment of the second article: Provided, That by this retrenchment the two States renounce the respective pretensions which are the object of the said article.' "These ratifications having been exchanged at Paris on July 31, 1801, were again submitted to the Senate of the United States, which on December 19, 1801, declared that it considered the convention fully ratified and returned it to the President for promulgation." (Public Treaties, published by authority of Congress, 1875, p. 232, 8 Stat., 192, 194.) The second or expunged article of the treaty was as follows: "The ministers plenipotentiary of the two parties not being able to agree at present respecting the treaty of alliance of February 6, 1778, the treaty of amity and commerce of the same date, and the (consular) convention of November 14, 1788, nor upon the indemnities mutually due or claimed, the parties will negotiate further on these subjects at a convenient time; and until they may have agreed upon these points the said treaties and conventions shall have no operation, and the relations of the two countries shall be as follows: 66 'MUTUAL RELEASE OF CLAIMS. ["Extract from the instructions of Mr. Madison, Secretary of State (Mr. Jefferson, President), to Mr. Charles Pinckney, our minister in Spain, dated February 6, 1804. Spain having contended that injuries committed on our citizens in Spanish ports, by Frenchmen, were included in the release of France by the United States in the convention of 1800.j "The plea on which it seems that the Spanish Government now principally relies is the erasure of the second article of our convention with France (of 1800), by which France was released from the indemnities due for spoliations committed under the immediate responsibility to the United States. This plea did not appear in the early objections of Spain to our claims. It was an afterthought, resulting from the insufficiency of every other plea, and certainly as little valid as any other. The injuries for which indemnities are claimed from Spain, though committed by Frenchmen, took place under Spanish authority; Spain, therefore, is answerable for them. To her we have looked, and continue to look, for redress. If the injuries done to us by her resulted in any manner from injuries done to her by France, she may, if she pleases, resort to France as we resort to her. But whether her resort to France would be just or unjust, is a question between her and France, not between either her and us or us and France. We claim against her, not against France. In releasing France, therefore, we have not released her. The claims again, from which France was released, were admitted by France, and the release was for a valuable consideration, in a corresponding release of the United States from certain claims on them. The claims we make on Spain were never admitted by France, nor made on France by the United States; they made, therefore, no part of the bargain with her, and could not be included in the release." The Emperor Napoleon, at St. Helena, in dictating for his history the events of his reign, said: "The suppression of this article (the second article of the convention of 1800) at once put an end to the privileges which France had possessed by the treaty of 1778, and annulled the just claims which America might have made for injuries done in time of peace.' (See Gourgaud's Memoirs, vol. 2, page 129.) The following extract is from 2 Wharton's International Law, p. 726: “Mr. Pickering, Secretary of State under the first two Presidents, and who, above all others, was familiar with the situation and with the rights of the parties, said that we bartered 'the just claims of our merchants' to obtain a relinquishment of the French demand, and that— "It would seem that the merchants have an equitable claim for indemnity from the United States. * * * The relinquishment by our Government having been made in consideration that the French Government relinquish its demands for a renewal of the old treaties, then it seems clear that, as our Government applied the merchant's property to buy off those old treaties, the sums so applied should be reimbursed." (Mr. Clayton's speech, 1846.) "It was the opinion of one of the ablest jurists and best patriots which the country ever produced (Chief Justice Marshall) that these claims are just. 'If,' said he, 'the envoys [of which he was one] renounced them, or did not by an article in the treaty, save them, the United States would thereby become liable for them to her citizens.' (Mr. Everett's statement, Rep. No. 445, H. of R., 2d session, 25th Congress, p. 128.) And again, Mr. Pickering says: "From the beginning to the end of the negotiations France admitted the general justice of the claims, and professed her readiness to make indemnity to our citizens. "This the American Government declined to accept, because the French coupled with it the demand for the restoration of the treaties, thinking it hard, in the language of our envoys, to indemnify for violating engagements unless they can thereby be restored to the benefit of them." (Mr. Everett's statement, Rep. Ño. 445, H. of R., second session, Twenty-fifth Cong., p. 128.) The letter of Talleyrand to Pichon, 4th of August, 1801 (Senate Doc. 102, page 698, first session, Nineteenth Congress), says: "The suppression of this article releasing the Americans from all pretensions on our part relative to ancient treaties, and our silence respecting the same article, leaving us exposed to the whole weight of the eventual demands of this Government relative to indemnities, it has become necessary that a form be introduced into the act of ratification in order to express the sense in which the Government of the Republic understood and accepted the abolition of the suppressed article." Although these spoliations began in 1793, yet the French minister was not suspended from the exercise of his functions with our Government until October 7, 1796, when the French minister of foreign affairs notified Mr. Monroe, our minister at Paris, of that fact. (Doc. 102, p. 148.) Mr. Madison, who was Secretary of State at the time of the ratification, subsequently wrote Minister Pinckney that the claims "from which France was released were admitted by France, and the release was for a valuable consideration in a correspondent release to the United States from certain claims on them." (Madison to Pinckney, February 6, 1804, Doc. 102, p. 795.) Mr. Livingston, our minister to Paris, wrote the French minister of exterior relations, on March 25, 1802: "You will recollect, sir, that the second article owed its birth to claims founded upon provisions contained in treaties previously existing between the two nations; that the Government of France was willing to admit these claims, provided the connections created by these were reestablished." (Doc. 102, p. 712.) And again, Mr. Livingston, on April 17, 1802, wrote the French minister as follows: "It will, sir, be well recollected by the distinguished characters who had the management of the negotiation that the payment for illegal captures, with damages and indemnities, was demanded on one side, and the renewal of the treaties of 1778 on the other, and they were considered as of equivalent value, and that they only formed the subject of the second article " Which was the one rescinded by the Senate of the United States. (Senate Doc., 102, .p. 717, first session, Nineteenth Congress.) THE COURT AS TO MUTUAL RELEASES. It is an admitted fact that the only court which has ever had jurisdiction of these claims for French spoliations is the Court of Claims, under the jurisdictional act of January 20, 1885, and the following is the form in which it renders judgment in cases established according to the rules of evidence, as will appear by reference to the reports made by it to Congress. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. "The court decides as conclusions of law that said seizure and condemnation were illegal, and the owners and insurers had valid claims of indemnity therefor upon the French Government prior to the ratification of the convention between the United States and the French Republic, concluded September 30, 1800; that said claim was relinquished to France by the Government of the United States by said treaty in part consideration of the relinquishment of certain national claims of France against the United States, and that the claimant is entitled to the following sum from the United States." REPORTS. On May 20, 1826, the President of the United States laid before the Senate the correspondence between the United States and France relative to French spoliations, and the same was printed and is known ever since as "Document 102." Prior to that time there had been 29 reports on the subject of the claims, of which three were adverse. The first report in the House was made by Mr. Giles in 1803, and the second by Mr. Marion in 1807, both of which were favorable. Of the 3 adverse reports made prior to obtaining Document 102, 1 was made by Mr. Forsyth in 1814, another by Mr. Roberts in 1818, and another by Mr. Russell in 1822. After the publication of the correspondence in Mr. Clay's report in 1826 (Doc. 102) no adverse report appeared until 1890, when one was made by the Committee on Appropriations of the Fiftieth Congress, to which the matter had never been referred by |