only permitted by the laws of most, if not all of our States, to carry on their operations within their borders, but receive the same protection under those laws as do their own native companies.

I would take the liberty, therefore, of suggesting that a treaty should, if possible, be made, whereby the French Government should accord full legal protection to any American company which shall claim it, and shall deposit with the proper French bureau a duly authenticated copy of the charter or general laws under which said company was organized, unless such charter or laws should not, in the opinion of such bureau, present sufficient guarantees for the protection of parties dealing with the company, in which case the reasons for refusing the application shall be set forth in writing by the said bureau, the president agreeing to recommend to the States to remove all disabilities under which French companies may be placed by their laws, and the French Government reserving to itself the right to govern its action as regards the corporations of any State by the rule of reciprocity, this clause being in fact similar to the one relating to real estate in the treaty of 1848 (if my memory serves me).

The interests of both countries seem to me to require that something should be done in this matter through the medium of a treaty. At all events, some very important American interests would doubtless be placed in a much more just and satisfactory position if our government would urge upon the French the issuing of executive decrees according a perfect legal status to any American company which shall present reasonable guarantees for the protection of French citizens doing business with the

SIR: This Department was informed by a note from the legation of France in this city, dated the 29th of September last, that that republic had just adopted regulations in regard to the right of sailing under the flag of the French protectorate among the Society Islands, allowing foreign captains of all nationalities to command vessels fitted out under that flag, upon certain conditions as to the character and capacity of the officers in question, and imposing submission to the laws of France, so far as regards their conduct and acts while commanding vessels under the protectorate.

It now appears from a dispatch from Mr. Atwater, the consul of the United States at Tahiti, No. 145, dated the 31st of December last, that foreigners are required to pay one hundred dollars per annum while navigating under the protectorate flag, which is not required of French or natives. In view of this discrimination, which does not seem to be warranted by anything contained in the French minister's note above mentioned, you are hereby instructed to apply in the proper quarter for a copy of the regulations in question, for the use of this Department, in order that it may be determined whether any action is necessary upon the part of this government for the protection of the rights of American citizens in the Society Islands.

I inclose herewith, for your information, a copy of Mr. Outrey's note of the 29th of September last*, and also of Mr. Atwater's dispatch No. 145.

I am, &c.,

WM. M. EVARTS.

*See correspondence with the French Legation in Washington, post, p. 379.

No. 145.]

[Inclosure in No. 217.]

Mr. Atwater to Mr. Hunter.

UNITED STATES CONSULATE, Tahiti, December 31, 1879. (Received February 28.)

SIR: Dispatch No. 79 has been received. In reply I have to state that the permission from the French Government allowing foreigners to navigate under the protectorate flag was promulgated here some time ago.

Foreigners are required to pay $100 per annum while navigating under the protectorate flag, which is not required of French nor natives. This seems unjust, when it is taken into consideration that there is but one vessel owned by French subjects, and that nine-tenths of all the commerce here is and always has been transacted by others than the French.

I am, &c.,

No. 229.

DORENCE ATWATER.

No. 316.]

Mr. Noyes to Mr. Evarts.

LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES,

Paris, March 12, 1880. (Received March 26.) SIR Referring to your instruction No. 212, of date February 24, 1880, to inform the State Department whether any Commune or German war claims on behalf of American citizens had been adjusted with the official knowledge or intervention of this legation, and suggesting that inquiry might be made of the minister of foreign affairs on the subject, I have the honor to report that, after search through the records of the legation, I find only one application of a claimant made through the American minister, Mr. Washburne, which was by a Mr. Miltz, for property damaged by the Garde Mobile during the siege of Paris, to which Count de Remusat, then minister of foreign affairs, replied, September 25, 1872, that the laws according such indemnities made no distinction between foreigners and French citizens, and that if Mr. Miltz had presented proof of his claim before the proper authority in due time he would have received compensation like all others, but that it was then too late.

Upon causing personal inquiry to be made at the foreign office, I learn that they have no document showing the nationality of the persons to whom compensation was allowed for such damages, no proof of nationality having been required of applicants, and that to make such a research as was suggested through the records of the foreign office and other departments would be a long task, involving much labor, and would probably be fruitless. Mr. Billot, sub-director of the department of claims, remarked that it was a fact notorious at the time that no distinction was made between French and foreigners, and he pointed out a circular of the minister of the interior, addressed to the prefects, dated December 12, 1871 (see Bulletin Official du Ministére de l'Intérieur, 1871, pages 644-652), explaining and applying the law of September 6, 1871, which provided for the payment of damages to all those who had suffered by the acts of the French or German armies. Commissions were organized in the cantons throughout France, and it was before these commissions that claims were everywhere presented to be adjudged. They were not presented through the legations or embassies. I inclose copies of the dispatch of Mr. Remusat referred to and trans.ation thereof.

I have, &c.,

EDWARD F. NOYES.

[Inclosure in No. 316.-Translation.]

Mr. Remusat to Mr. Washburne.

VERSAILLES, September 25, 1872. SIR: You did me the honor to write in regard to Mr. Miltz, whose property was damaged by the Garde Mobile during the siege of Paris.

The National Assembly passed two laws in relation to the indemnity to be granted to the victims of the war; one of date June 15, 1871, relates to requisitions made upon private individuals and payments in kind, which they were constrained to furnish to the French troops. The second law, of September 6 of the same year, appropriated the sum of 100,000,000 francs to be distributed among those who suffered damages resulting from the war.

Mr. Miltz ought to have presented his claim in due time before the competent au thority in order to have it included, if there was just reason therefor, in the category of indemnities recognized by the law. In fact, no distinction was established between natives and foreigners, the latter having no other formalities to comply with than those which were required from Frenchmen, and Mr. Miltz has only himself to blame for having allowed delays to run after the expiration of which such claims incurred forfeiture.

Accept, &c.,

No. 230.

REMUSAT.

No. 322.]

Mr. Noyes to Mr. Evarts.

LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, Paris, March 26, 1880. (Received April 8.) SIR Referring to State Department confidential dispatch No. 163, of date July 17, 1879, and my answer thereto, No. 256, dated August 20, 1879, and subsequent State Department dispatch No. 201, of date January 26, 1880, with inclosures, I beg leave to reaffirm all I said in my communication of August 20, 1879.

I have made careful inquiry, of the only persons connected with the French Government in a position to know the facts, and find that there is absolutely nothing in the reports which have gained currency, as to the French protectorate over Liberia. No proposition has been received from any responsible source, and none has been made by the French Government to that of Liberia.

I feel great confidence in saying that no such project would be favorably considered by the French minister for foreign affairs or the cabinet, even if it were suggested by competent authority.

I have, &c.,

SIR: On the 26th of March last, in pursuance of your instruction No. 217, of date March 3, 1880, I addressed a communication to Mr. de Freycinet, requesting a copy of the regulations recently adopted by the minister of the marine and the colonies in regard to the right of sailing under the flag of the French protectorate among the Society Islands,

and allowing foreign captains of all nationalities to command vessels. fitted out under the flag of the protectorate.

I have the honor to inclose herewith a copy and translation of the reply of Mr. de Freycinet, from which it appears that the prescriptions alluded to have not been clothed with the form of an administrative regulation, and there is no text of them outside of the instructions sent, "to this effect," to the French commandant in Oceanica. The tenor of these instructions, he says, was communicated to the Government of the United States in Mr. Outrey's letter of September 29, 1879.

Shall I inquire of the minister of foreign affairs, specifically, whether the discrimination against foreign captains is authorized or not?

I have, &c.,

EDWARD F. NOYES.

[Inclosure in No. 341.-Translation.]

Mr. de Freycinet to Mr. Noyes.

PARIS, April 28, 1880. GENERAL: I did not fail to make known to Admiral Jauréguiberry the desire you were pleased to express to me by your letter of the 26th of March last, to obtain communication of the text of the new regulations adopted by his department governing the exercise of the right of navigation under the flag of the protectorate of the Archipelago of Society Islands.

It appears from the information furnished by the minister of the marine that the prescriptions to which you allude have not been clothed with the form of an administrative regulation. There is no text of them, therefore, whatever, outside of the instructions which have been sent to this effect to the commandant of our establishments in Oceanica, and the tenor of which was brought to the knowledge of the Government of the United States September 29, 1879, through the medium of our representative at Washington.

Accept, &c.,

C. DE FREYCINET.

No. 346.]

No. 232.

Mr. Noyes to Mr. Evarts.

LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, Paris, May 7, 1880. (Received May 19.) SIR: I have the honor to inclose herewith, for the information of the State Department, copies of a communication recently addressed by me to the French minister for foreign affairs, and his answer thereto, regarding the rights of the United States consul-general to take possession of and administer upon the effects of American citizens dying in France. It will be observed that the French Government holds that in principle all such estates must be administered in the courts of the country, and that the United States consul-general has of right no authority in the premises.

This decision is at variance with the custom heretofore prevailing, and is based, as will be seen, upon the absence of a treaty stipulation upon the subject between the two countries and upon the failure of reciprocity under the method of administration adopted in the United States regarding the estates of Frenchmen dying there.

I have, &c.,

EDWARD F. NOYES.

[Inclosure 1 in No. 346.]

Mr. Noyes to Mr. de Freycinet.

PARIS, April 26, 1880. SIR: I have the honor to transmit herewith a communication from Mr. George Walker, consul-general of the, United States at Paris, with reference to the estate, or that portion of the estate which is in France, of Theodore Gentil, deceased, an American citizen at the time of his death.

Your excellency will observe that the property of Mr. Gentil was taken possession of by the United States consul-general, and the seals of the consulate were affixed in accordance with the custom heretofore prevailing.

The effects have been advertised for sale on the 29th of the present month. But it seems that the juge de paix of the eighth arrondissement has intervened, and that French seals have been placed over those of the United States consulate-general, for what reason the United States consul-general is not informed.

Feeling that the obstructions above stated are unwarranted, I send this communica tion calling attention thereto, requesting that the French Government will inquire into the same, and that if possible a solution may be reached in season for the sale to proceed as advertised and fixed, namely, on the 29th instant.

There are many wealthy Americans residing in Paris, and it is of course important for them to know whether, in case of death, their estates are to be administered in accordance with the precedents heretofore existing, or whether another rule will be established. I have entertained no doubt but that the French Government will consider the subject in a friendly spirit when its attention is called thereto.

Mr. Gentil was clearly an American citizen. He left, so far as known, no heirs in France. There are no debts which the consul-general of the United States is not prepared to discharge. I cannot think that the interference of the juge de pair is warranted or that it will be approved by the French authorities under the circumstances. I beg leave respectfully to urge your excellency to have the matter inquired into as soon as possible, as the case is pressing, and delaying the sale will bring serious loss to the estate, for the reasons pointed out by Consul-General Walker, and as the principle involved is an important one to United States citizens residing in Paris. I avail, &c.,

[Inclosure 2 in No. 346.-Translation.]

EDWARD F. NOYES.

Mr. de Freycinet to Mr. Noyes.

PARIS, April 28, 1880. SIR: By the letter which you did me the honor to write me the 26th of this month, you called my attention to a difficulty which had arisen between Mr. George Walker, consul-general of the United States, and the justice of the peace of the eighth arrondissement in regard to placing the seals, done concurrently by these two authorities, upon the domicile of Mr. Theodore Gentil, an American citizen, deceased at Paris, 9 rue Lincoln, the 3d of April last.

You express to me on this subject the opinion that the intervention of our magistrate was not justified under the circumstances in question, and you ask that measures be taken in order that Mr. Walker may, from this time, and in analogous cases that may arise in the future, be permitted to exercise those functions which the consular regulations of the United States confer upon him upon the death of American citizens in France.

I regret that I am not able to give you as complete a satisfaction upon this point as you might have desired.

In the absence of formal conventional stipulations concerning the regulation of the estates of citizens of the United States dying in France, the American consuls do not possess, by any title, the right of placing seals upon the domicile of one of their deceased countrymen, nor even that of crossing their seals, under such circumstances, with those of the French authorities, this right constituting a privilege accorded only to the consular representatives of nations with which we are bound by special arrange

ments.

The principle of reciprocity on which this privilege is founded cannot even be invoked, since the estates of Frenchmen dying in the United States are, in the actual state of our relations, regulated exclusively by the American authorities.

The justice of the peace of the eighth arrondissement does not, therefore, appear to me to have exceeded his powers in regard to the Gentil estate, and I cannot in the