tioned by a subsequent request from Lieutenant-General Sir George Prevost.

"A copy of your letter will this day be forwarded by me to England, and, until I receive instructions from my Government, the measures which I have adopted must be persisted in, unless remuneration be made to the inhabitants of the Canadas for the injuries they have sustained from the outrages committed by the troops of the United States." Vice-Admiral Cochrane to Mr. Monroe, Sec. of State, Sept. 19, 1814. 3 Am. St. Pap. (For. Rel.), 694. Infra, § 348b.

The treaty of July 4, 1831, negotiated by Mr. Rives, in Paris, fixed the spoliation indebtedness of France to the United States at 25,000,000 francs, payable in six annual installments, with interest. The treaty, however, could not be executed or the money paid without the action of the House of Deputies. This the then ministers hesitated to propose to the house, though the United States, in discharge of a stipulation made in the treaty as an equivalent, modified by act of Congress the duty on French wines. So little prepared was the United States Government for the failure on the part of France to fulfill her treaty obligations that Mr. McLane, on January 7, 1833, drew on the French minister of finance for the first installment of the debt, the draft maturing Febuary 7, 1833, the day of payment. The draft, in the hands of a European indorsee, was refused payment on the ground that no appropriation had been made. Mr. Edward Livingston, then Secretary of State, was, on May 24, 1833, commissioned as minister to France, where he arrived in September, 1833, the mission having been vacant since the return of Mr. Rives in 1831. The King (Louis Philippe) received Mr. Livingston with great courtesy, but showed great unwillingness to direct his ministry to bring up the question of the debt before the House of Deputies. It was suggested that in the negotiation of the treaty Mr. Rives had obtained an undue advantage from a superior knowledge of the facts; but, as Mr. Livingston well replied, this could not with any propriety be alleged, since the United States in making up its case had to depend almost exclusively on papers obtained in France. General Jackson was much irritated at this and other evasions of duty, but his confidence in Mr. Livingston led him to intrust that eminent statesman with full discretion. This discretion to its entire extent was necessary to avoid a rupture. Twice within the six months following Mr. Livingston's arrival was the question postponed by the House of Deputies; and then payment was refused by a majority of eight. When a new House of Deputies was organized in 1834, the matter was again postponed; and so indignant was President Jackson at these succesive breaches of treaty obligation that in his annual message of December, 1834, he recommended reprisals. This message, coupled with certain dispatches of Mr. Livingston which had been imprudently published by the United States Government, produced a feeling of great anger in France. The French minister of foreign affairs at once informed Mr. Livingston that while the King would apply to the House of Deputies for an appropriation for payment of the debt, he considered, after the language used by the Government of the United States, that he could not permit his minister, M. Serrurier, to leave for Washington. Mr. Livingston was then offered his own passports. Mr. Livingston, in, reply, stated that on the question of voluntarily leaving France he would await the instructions of his own Government. This course was ap

proved by the President, who directed Mr. Livingston that if the appropriation was rejected he was to leave France in a United States shipof-war then waiting his orders; while if the appropriation was made Mr. Livingston was to leave France for England and place the legation in the hands of the chargé d'affaires. The House of Deputies resolved at last, when the crisis came, to pass the appropriation, but it attached to the resolution the proviso that the money should not be paid until satisfactory explanation had been made of those portions of the President's message above referred to which reflected on France. Mr. Livingston, being placed in a position for which he had no instructions, and feeling that he could not, under any circumstances, consent to treat an Executive message to Congress, which is a matter exclusively of domestic concern (see supra, § 79), as subject to the criticisms of a foreign power, called for his passports, leaving the legation in charge of Mr. Barton as chargé d'affaires, and addressing to the Duc de Broglie, then French minister of foreign affairs, a vindication of his position in regarding the President's message as not the subject of explanation or criticism. (For extracts, see supra, § 79.)

Mr. Barton's instructions, when left as chargé d'affaires in Paris on Mr. Livingston's withdrawal, were, in case of a refusal of the French Government to pay the installment due, to surrender his mission and return home. The Duc de Broglie, French minister of foreign affairs, baving iuformed Mr. Barton that the money would not be paid until there was an expression of regret from the President of the United States at the misunderstanding that had existed, accompanied with what was tantamount to an apology, Mr. Barton left France to obtain direct instructions from the President as to the course to be pursued. He was joined, when he returned to New York, by Mr. Livingston, who went with him when he went to Washington. President Jackson, when the facts were reported to him, drafted a special message which he sent to Mr. Livingston for revision. Mr. Livingston considered the terms too peremptory, and on January 11, 1836, wrote to the President as follows:

"The message about to be delivered is of no ordinary importance; it may produce war or secure peace. Should the French Government be content to receive your last message, they will not do so until they have seen this. There should not, therefore, be anything in it unneces sarily irritating. You have told them home truths in the past. You have made a case which will unite every American in feeling on the side of our country. It cannot be made stronger, and to repeat it would be unnecessary. The draft you did me the honor to show me would make an admirable manifesto or declaration of war; but we are not yet come to that. The world would give it that character, and issued before we know the effect of the first message, it would be considered as precipitate. The characteristics of the present communication ought, in my opinion, to be moderation and firmness. Moderation in lan

guage, firmness in purpose, will unite all hearts at home, all opinions abroad in our favor. Warmth and recrimination will give arguments to false friends and real enemies, which they may use with effect against

On these principles I have framed the hasty draft which I inclose. You will with your usual discernment determine whether it suits the present emergency."

This draft, thus submitted, was made the basis of the President's message of January 15, 1836. The tone of this message, together with that of the message immediately preceding, was such as to induce the

French Government, as hereinafter stated, to pay the installments due without further reservation.

"Our institutions are essentially pacific. Peace and friendly intercourse with all nations are as much the desire of our Government as they are the interest of our people. But these objects are not to be permanently secured by surrendering the rights of our citizens, or permitting solemn treaties for their indemnity in cases of flagrant wrong to be abrogated or set aside.

"It is undoubtedly in the power of Congress seriously to affect the agricultural and manufacturing interests of France by the passage of laws relating to her trade with the United States. Her products, manufactures, and tonnage may be subjected to heavy duties in our ports, or all commercial intercourse with her may be suspended. But there are powerful, and, to my mind, conclusive objections to this mode of proceeding. We cannot embarrass or cut off the trade of France without at the same time, in some degree, embarrassing or cutting off our own trade. The injury of such a warfare must fall, though unequally, upon our own citizens, and could not but impair the means of the Government, and weaken that united sentiment in support of the rights and honor of the nation which must now pervade every bosom. Nor is it impossible that such a course of legislation would introduce once more into our national councils those disturbing questions in relation to the tariff of duties which have been so recently put to rest. Besides, by every measure adopted by the Government of the United States with the view of injuring France, the clear perception of right which will induce our own people, and the rulers and people of all other nations, even of France herself, to pronounce our quarrel just, will be obscured, and the support rendered to us, in a final resort to more decisive measures, will be more limited and equivocal. There is but one point in the controversy, and upon that the whole civilized world must pronounce France to be in the wrong. We insist that she shall pay us a sum of money which she has acknowledged to be due, and of the justice of this demand there can be but one opinion among mankind. True policy would seem to dictate that the question at issue should be kept thus disemcumbered, and that not the slightest pretense should be given to France to persist in her refusal to make payment by any act on our part affecting the interests of her people. The question should be left as it is now, in such an attitude that when France fulfills her treaty stipulations all controversy will be at an end.

"It is my conviction that the United States ought to insist on a prompt execution of the treaty, and in case it be refused, or longer delayed, take redress into their own hands. After the delay on the part of France, of a quarter of a century, in acknowledging these claims by treaty, it is not to be tolerated that another quarter of a century is to be wasted in negotiating about the payment. The laws of nations provide a remedy for such occasions. It is a well-settled principle of the international

code that where one nation owes another a liquidated debt, which it refuses or neglects to pay, the aggrieved party may seize on the property belonging to the other, its citizens or subjects, sufficient to pay the debt, without giving just cause of war. This remedy has been repeatedly resorted to, and recently by France herself toward Portugal, under circumstances less unquestionable."

President Jackson, Sixth Annual Message, 1834.

Senate Doc. 40, 23d Cong., 2d sess., contains a report of Mr. Clay, from the Committee on Foreign Relations, on the President's message of December, 1834, closing with the resolution "that it is inexpedient, at this time, to pass any law vesting in the President authority for making reprisals on French property in the contingency of provision not being made for paying to the United States the indemnity stipulated by the treaty of 1831, during the present session of the French Chambers." The report begins by stating an "entire concurrence with the President as to the justice of the claims." The report proceeds to examine Mr. Rives' negotiations with the French minister of foreign affairs, and states that in this negotiation "the King manifested the most friendly feeling toward the United States." It explains the unfriendly action of the House of Delegates as due in part to "deep-rooted prejudice," in part to indiscreet publication of dispatches of the American negotiators. The failure on the part of the French Government to secure favorable action was held by the committee to be attributable to the fact that "during certain seasons of the year legislative labors are habitually suspended;" that the Government was obliged to proceed with "great circumspection;" "that a special call of the Chambers would not be attended with the benefits expected from it at Washington." The committee then say that "if these reasons are not sufficient to command conviction, they ought to secure acquiescence in the resolution of the King not to hazard the success of the bill by a special call of the French legislature at an unusual season of the year." "It is conceded that the refusal of one portion of a foreign Government, whose concurrence is necessary to carry into effect a treaty with another, may be regarded, in strictness, as tantamount to a refusal of the whole Government." But it is argued that a refusal by a majority of 8 in a house of 344 members ought not to be treated as final. On the subject of reprisals in general the report proceeds to say:

"In recommending adherence yet longer to negotiation for the purposes indicated, the committee are encouraged by the past experience of this Government. Almost every power of Europe, especially during the wars of the French Revolution, and several of those of the new states on the American continent, have, from time to time, given to the United States just cause of war. Millions of treasure might have been expended, and countless numbers of human beings been sacrificed, if the United States had rashly precipitated themselves into a state of war upon the occurrence of every wrong. But they did not; other and more moderate and better counsels prevailed. The result attested their wisdom. With most of the powers, by the instrument of negotiation, appealing to the dictates of reason and of justice, we have happily compromised and accommodated all difficulties. Even with respect to France, after negotiations of near a quarter century's duration; after repeated admissions, by successive Governments of France, of the justice of some portion of our claims, but after various repulses, under one pretext or

another, we have advanced, not retrograded. France, by a solemn treaty, has admitted the justice, and stipulated to pay a specific sum in satisfaction, of our claims. Whether this treaty is morally and absolutely binding upon the whole French people or not, it is the deliberate act of the royal executive branch of the French Government, which speaks, treats, and contracts with all foreign nations for France. The execu tion of the stipulations of such a treaty may be delayed-postponed, as we have seen-contrary to the wishes of the King's Government; but sooner or later they must be fulfilled, or France must submit to the degrading stigma of bad faith,

"Having expressed these views and opinions, the committee might content themselves and here conclude; but they feel called upon to say something upon the other branch of the alternative, stated in the outset, as having been presented by the President of the United States to the consideration of Congress. The President is under a conviction that the United States ought to insist on a prompt execution of the treaty; and, in case it be refused, or longer delayed, take redress in their own hands. He accordingly recommends that a law be passed, authorizing reprisals upon French property in case provision shall not be made for the payment of the debt at the approaching session of the French Chambers. This measure he deems of a pacific character, and he thinks it may be resorted to without giving just cause of war.

"It is true that writers on the public law speak and treat of reprisals as a peaceful remedy, in cases which they define and limit. It is certainly a very compendious one, since the injured nation has only to authorize the seizure and sale of sufficient property of the debtor nation, or its citizens, to satisfy the debt due; and, if it quietly submit to the process, there is an end of the business. In that case, however, we should feel some embarrassment as to the exact amount of the French debt for which we should levy, because, being payable in six installments, with interest, computed from the day of the exchange of the ratifications of the treaty (February, 1832), only two of those installments are yet due. Should we enforce payment of those two only, and resort to the irritating, if not hazardous, remedy of reprisals, as the others shall successively fall due; or, in consequence of default in the payment of the first two, consider them all now due and levy for the whole? "Reprisals do not of themselves produce a state of public war; but they are not unfrequently the immediate precursor of it. When they are accompanied with an authority, from the Government which admits them, to employ force, they are believed invariably to have led to war in all cases where the nation against which they are directed is able to make resistance. It is wholly inconceivable that a powerful and chivalrous nation, like France, would submit, without retaliation, to the seizure of the property of her unoffending citizens, pursuing their lawful commerce, to pay a debt which the popular branch of her legislature had refused to acknowledge and provide for. It cannot be supposed that France would tacitly and quietly assent to the payment of a debt to the United States, by a forcible seizure of French property, which, after full deliberation, the Chambers had expressly refused its consent to discharge. Retaliation would ensue, and retaliation would inevitably terminate in war. In the instance of reprisals made by France upon Portugal, cited by the President, the weakness of this power, convulsed and desolated by the ravages of civil war, sufficiently accounts for the fact of their being submitted to, and not producing a state of general hostilities between the two nations.