Origin of Claims. History of French Brazil. - Negotia Britain; Colonial

THE foreign relations of the United States at the commencement of the new administration presented a peaceful and tranquil aspect.

Controversies had arisen with Great Britain in relation to the West India trade and concerning the boundary line between Maine and the British Provinces of Canada and New Brunswick; but this last question had been referred, by consent, to the decision of the King of the Netherlands, and after a long contest, the former had terminated in a suspension of all direct intercourse between the United States and the British Islands - both parties adhering to their respective principles as too important to be abandoned.

Claims, too, existed upon most of the Continental Powers for

spoliations of American commerce during the war consequent upon the French Revolution, committed with the double view of filling their own treasuries, and diminishing the resources of their enemies, by cutting off their trade with neutrals.

It had always been the favorite policy of powerful belligerents to narrow the limits of neutral commerce, by multiplying the pretexts of seizure and confiscation; but, during that war, this system was carried to an extent of which previous history had afforded no example, and was sought to be justified on peculiar principles. It was upon the wealth and resources of these United States that these measures were meant chiefly to operate, and it was the policy of that government that they were intended to control.

The grasping spirit of European monopoly attempted to impose new shackles, in place of the colonial fetters that had been shaken off, and displayed itself in continual efforts to cripple the commerce it could not prohibit, lessen the resources it was not suffered to approbate, and arrest the growth of the prosperity it had no longer the power to crush. The first act in this series of aggressions was an exclusion from an extensive branch in the carrying trade, by a sudden revival, in a new form, and with a wider application of the rule of 1756. Our partial submission to this measure was followed by successive outrages by all the belligerent powers upon American commerce, and the persons of those engaged in it.*

From Spain, one of the belligerent parties, satisfaction was obtained by the cession of Florida, and the claims of American citizens on that power to the amount of $5,000,000 were liquidated and paid. There still exists, however, claims upon the Governments of France and other continental powers of Europe, formidable in their amount, and the settlement of which is of the highest importance to the national character.

The claim upon Denmark rests upon grounds different from those upon France and the dependent kingdoms of that power.

They grew out of a system of piratical privateering upon American commerce, which was coun

tenanced by the Admiralty Courts of that kingdom.

Some vessels were captured for having French consular certificates on board; the Emperor Napolean having notified the northern courts that his consuls in the United States would not issue any neutral certificates after the 22d of September, 1810, when, in fact, his order to his consuls was not received in the United States until the 13th of November following. Still, those vessels, having certificates of the French Consuls, issued previous to that period, were captured and condemned; and by this celebrated juggle between these courts, a large amount of property was seized. Other vessels were condemned as having accepted British convoy, a ground of condemnation that ought never to have been applied been applied to those vessels which were compelled to accept, by superior force, of that protection which proved so fatal to them.

Negotiations were renewed un der Mr Adams' administration, with the view of obtaining compensation for these claims, and Mr Wheaton, a gentleman of talent and learning, was selected as Minister to Denmark. After two years' residence, his exertions were crowned with success, and a treaty was formed, March 28th, 1830, by which the controversy was terminated; the Danish Government paying $650,000, in full compensation of all claims arising from the illegal captures

and confiscations of American vessels.

The claims upon France, however, are of a paramount character, on account of the magnitude, and of the nature of the considerations by which they are recommended to public attention.

In the year 1806, November 21st, the Emperor of France, on the alleged ground that England had infringed the rights of neutrals in blockading the coasts of France and Holland, and prohibiting them from carrying on the trade between the colonies and the belligerent mother countries, issued his celebrated Berlin Decree. By this decree the British Islands were declared to be in a state of blockade, and all correspondence with them was prohibited. Letters written in English were made liable to seizure; all trade in English merchandize was forbidden, and the goods made lawful prize. Vessels coming directly from England or her colonies, or having been there since the publication of the decree were prohibited from entering any French ports and any attempt to evade that regulation, by means af a false declaration, was punished by confiscation.

Under this decree a number of American vessels arriving in France after its promulgation, were seized, because they had put into England; being forced in by stress of weather, or sent in by English cruisers for examination. This seizure was unauthorized even by the decree itself, which imposed no other penalty on vessels coming from English ports,

than their compulsory departure from those of the continent, and limited the right to seize to the single case of an attempt to evade this provision by a false declaration.

At this time, too, the convention between France and the United States, of the 30th September, 1800, was in full force. By the 22d article of that convention, it was agreed that the established courts for prize causes should alone take cognizance of the vessels and property of American and French citizens, and that, when judgment should be pronounced against them, the sentence should mention the reasons of the decision.

It was accordingly provided in the Berlin decree, that the council of prizes at Paris should decide upon all questions arising under that decree. When the seAmerican vessels were seized, a question arose whether they were liable to seizure under that decree, on the ground, that they had not gone voluntarily but had been coerced into the ports of England.

The question was never submitted to the council of prizes; but, on the 4th of September, 1807, the director general of the customs issued a circular, giving the most rigorous construction to the decree, and a retrospective effect to his own decision, so as to extend it over all the American vessels which had been previously seized and were then waiting for trial. The injustice therefore of the condemnations which took place under this construction of the decree did not consist merely in their infringement of the law of nations,

but was heightened by their violation of the express terms of a treaty.

On the 11th December, 1807, the Berlin decree was followed by the Milan decree, also in professed rataliation of the invasions of neutral rights by England. This decree provided that any ship, which should submit to be searched by an English vessel, or had been carried into England, or paid any duty to the English Government, should be adjudged to have forfeited the protection of its own Government, to have become English property, and to be good and lawful prize.

The British Islands were declared to be in a state of blockade, and all ships, of whatever nation, sailing from or to English ports, were declared to be lawful prize and liable to capture. This article was a new and further infraction of the convention of 1800, which was still in force. By the 12th and 14th articles of that convention the French Government had expressly stipulated that free ships should give freedom to the goods of an enemy, and that American vessels might pass and repass, freely, to and from the ports of the enemies of France, unless the same were actually blockaded, besieged or invested.' This decree, like that issued at Berlin, was nominally applicable to all neutral vessels: but the chief operation of both was upon American commerce.

It was soon made the pretext of the seizure and sale of a great number of American vessels and cargoes, the proceeds of which, without scruple, were applied to the service of the French govern

ment.

Orders were given to capture, and even to destroy, every American vessel bound to England or her dependencies. Nor were the armed vessels of France slow or scrupulous in enforcing these orders. Numbers of American vessels were burnt at sea, without even the form of a trial, and condemned by no other sentence than the will of the captors. And this wanton violation of neutral rights was, in some instances, carried so far as to cause the destruction of American vessels bound from their own country, not to hostile but to neutral ports.

The violent and inimical spirit shown by both belligerents towards the commerce of the United States, at last induced the American Government to lay an embargo, for the purpose of withdrawing the property of its citizens from the grasp of their unprincipled policy. Even this measure, pacific as it was, had the effect of provoking further aggressions upon the remnant of its commerce, in the shape of a decree at Bayonne, April 17, 1808, ordering the seizure of all American vessels then in the ports of France, or which might afterwards arrive there', without any pretence except one, which was false in fact and in its spirit most offensive and insulting.

The pretence was, that an embargo having been laid by Congress, no American vessel could be lawfully abroad, and, consequently, that those which appeared as such, could have no title to the national character, but ought to be condemned as British property. This most extraordinary claim on the part of the French

Government, was met not only by proper remonstrances by the American minister, but by an explanation, showing that, at the time of laying the embargo, there were many American vessels abroad, which were ordered by their owners not to return to the United States until that law should be repealed. The operation of the embargo on the commercial and agricultural interests of the country, finally induced Congress to repeal the law in respect to all countries, except England and France, and the non-intercourse system was adopted in its stead. By that system, all English and French vessels and merchandize were excluded from American ports, until they had revoked or so modified their hostile decrees, as to exempt our commerce from their destructive operation. In that event, the commercial intercourse of the United States was to be renewed with that belligerent, which should thus evince its disposition to return to the observance of the rights of friendly nations.

On the 29th of April, 1809, this law was communicated by the American minister to the French Government. No indication was given by that Government that it was regarded as a hostile measure, and no remonstrance was made against it.

Towards the end of that year, however, orders were given to seize all American vessels in the ports of France, or in possession of her armies; and, after a great number had been thus seized, a decree was issued, dated at Rambouillet, March 23, 1810, con

firming those seizures; extending by a retrospective operation, the principle to all American vessels which had entered France, or the dependent countries, since May 20, 1809, and directing the proceeds arising from their sale, to be paid into the Public Treasury. Even this outrageous measure,' as it has been justly styled, in the official correspondence of the American minister, was not the limit of the aggressions of the continental belligerents. In pursuance of the continental system, promulgated in the Berlin and Milan decrees, which were communicated as orders to the dependent allies of France, many American vessels were seized in the Kingdom of Naples, fortyseven in number, and valued at four millions of dollars; were enticed into the Neapolitan ports by a decree of Murat, which relaxed the rigor of the blockade decrees as to American vessels, and, when they had trusted themselves to this plighted faith, the Neapolitan Government caused them to be seized, with their cargoes, which were sold for the benefit of the Government, and some of the vessels were taken into the public service.

In Holland, American vessels arriving in her ports in 1809, some of them forced in by stress of weather, were sequestered, without any pretence of their having infringed the laws of the Kingdom, and their cargoes placed in the public stores. The vessels were permitted to depart, as not having violated any laws; but the cargoes were detained, until the 16th of March, 1810, when