SEPARATE ARTICLE. and by the other to that of the Grand Duchy of Finland, shall not, in any case, be invoked in favour of the relations of commerce and navigation, sanctioned between the two high contracting parties by the present treaty. The present separate article shall have the same force and value as if it were inserted, word for word, in the treaty signed this day, and shall be ratified at the same time. Certain relations of proximity, and anterior engagements, having rendered it necessary for the Imperial Government. to regulate the commercial relations of Russia with Prussia, and the kingdoms of Sweden and Norway, by special stipulations, now actually in force, and which may be renewed hereafter; which stipulations are, in no manner, connected with the existing regulations for foreign commerce in general; the two high contracting parties, wishing to remove from their commercial relations every kind of ambiguity or subject of discussion, have agreed that the special stipulations granted to the com-th of December, in the year of merce of Prussia, and of Sweden Grace one thousand eight hundred and Norway, in consideration of and thirty-two. equivalent advantages granted in these countries, by the one to the commerce of the kingdom of Poland, In faith whereof, we the under. signed, by virtue of our respective full powers, have signed the present separate article, and affixed thereto the seals of our arms. Done at St. Petersburg, the JAMES BUCHANAN. [L. S.] CHARLES COMTE DE NESSELROde. [L. S.] CORRESPONDENCE RELATING TO THE CLAIMS OF CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES ON FRANCE. Extracts from the General Instructions of John Quincy Adams, Secretary of State of the United States, to James Brown, dated at Washington, 23d December, 1823. "The subjects of immediate concern in the relations between the United States and France, which will require your attention, are, last, [the turning away of the Congress frigate from Cadiz,] have been discussed between the two governments during the missions of your predecessors; most of them so fully, that a renewal of the dis cussion can scarcely be expected to adduce any novelty of argument or of illustration. All the corres. pondence concerning them will be before you, and you will, immediately after your reception, earnest. ly call the attention of the French government to the claims of our "All these subjects, except the citizens for indemnity. "1. The claims of many citizens of the United States upon the French government for indemnity. "2. The pretension raised by the French government to special and exclusive privileges in the ports of Louisiana, by virtue of the 8th article of the Louisiana cession convention, &c. &c. &c. * "You will, at the same time, explicitly make known that this go. vernment cannot consent to connect this discussion with that of the pretension raised by France on the construction given by her to the 8th article of the Louisiana cession treaty. The difference in the na: ture and character of the two interests is such, that they cannot, with propriety, be blended together. The claims are for reparation to individuals for their property taken from them by manifest and undisputed wrong. The question upon the Louisiana treaty is a question of right upon the meaning of a contract. It has been fully, deliberate ly, and thoroughly investigated; and the government of the United States are under the entire and solemn conviction, that the pretension of France is utterly unfounded. We are, nevertheless, willing to resume the discussion, if desired by France: but to refuse justice to individuals, unless the United States will accede to the construction of an article in a treaty, contrary to what they believe to be its real meaning, would be not only incom. patible with the principles of equity, but submitting to a species of compulsion derogatory to the honour of the nation. SIR, Mr. Adams to Mr. Brown. Department of State, note of the 28th April upon this Washington, 14th Aug., 1824. subject; and he desires that you I HAVE had the honour of receiving your despatches to No 4, inclusive, dated 28th May, with their enclosures. The subject which has first claimed the attention of the president, has been the result of your correspondence with.Viscount de Chateaubriand in relation to the claims of numerous citizens of the United States upon the justice of the French go vernment. I enclose herewith a copy of a report of the committee of foreign relations of the house of representatives upon several petitions addressed to that body at their last session by some of those claimants, and of a resolution of the house adopted thereupon. The president has deliberately considered the purport of Mr. de Chateaubriand's answer to your S would renew, with earnestness, the application for indemnity to our citizens for claims notoriously just, and resting upon the same principle with others which have been admitted and adjusted by the govern ment of France. In the note of Viscount de Chateaubriand to you, of 7th May, it is said that he is authorized to declare a negotiation will be opened with you upon the American claims if this negotiation should also include French claims, and particularly the arrangements to be concluded concerning the execution of the eighth article of the Louisiana treaty. You are authorized, in reply, to declare that any just claims which subjects of France may have upon the government of the United States will readily be included in the negotiation, and to stipulate any suit, able provision for the examination, adjustment, and satisfaction of them. But the question relating to the eighth article of the Louisiana treaty, is not only of a different character it cannot be blended with that of indemnity for individual claims, with. out a sacrifice, on the part of the United States, of the principle of right. The negotiation for indemnity presupposes that wrong has been done; that indemnity ought to be made; and the object of any treaty stipulation concerning it, can. only be to ascertain what is justly due, and to make provision for the payment of it. By consenting to connect with such a negotiation that relating to the eighth article of the Louisiana convention, the United States would abandon the principle upon which the whole discussion concerning it depends. The situation of the parties to the negotiation would be unequal. The United States, asking reparation for admitted wrong, are told that France will not discuss it with them unless they will first renounce their own sense of right, to admit and discuss with it a claim, the justice of which they have constantly denied. The government of the United States is prepared to renew the discussion with that of France, relating to the eighth article of the Louisiana treaty, in any manner which may be desired, and by which they shall not be understood to admit that France has any claim under it whatever. A change having taken place in the French department of foreign affairs, it is hoped that a new application in behalf of the claims will be more successful than those which have hitherto been urged in vain. It may, perhaps, be proper to offer to discuss further the Louisiana treaty question before entering upon the negotiation for the claims; but you will not fail to press seriously upon the French government, that, as the United States cannot see in the result of the discussion hitherto, any just claim of France arising from the article of the treaty, so, in the persevering refusal of France to discuss and adjust the well-founded claims of the citizens of the United States to indemnity for wrongs, unless in connexion with one which they are satisfied is unfounded, the United States could ultimately perceive only a determination of France to deny justice to the claimants altogether. From the tenor of the resolution of the house of representatives, a copy of which is enclosed, you will discern the necessity of obtaining a positive and ultimate answer, in season to be communicated to congress at an early period of their next session. I am, with great respect, &c. &c, Mr. Clay to Mr. Brown. Department of State, Washington, 28th May, 1827. JAMES BROWN, Envoy Extraordinary, and Minister Plenipotentiary to France. SIR, I TRANSMIT herewith, a report from this department to the house of representatives, made at the last session of congress, in pursuance of a resolution of the house, containing a schedule of claims of citizens of the United States on foreign govern ments, arising out of spoliations be, it will preserve to the last, until committed on our commerce during indemnity be obtained. the wars of the French revolution. The schedule is as comprehensive as the materials in the possession of the department would admit: but it is not to be taken as by any means exhibiting the full amount of the just claims of our citizens. The common casualties incident to human nature, have probably prevented the transmission to the depart. ment of many claims. Some did not come in until after the expiration of the period fixed in the resolution of the house of representatives for their being forwarded to the department, and others were received subsequently to the presentation of the schedule to the house. The claims which are excluded ought not to be considered as affected in the least degree by their omission. The design of the house of representatives, in requiring a statement of the amount of claims upon foreign governments, was to obtain a general and proximate view of their extent, without any purpose of impairing the valid ity of those which, from whatever cause, should not be forwarded. Although, for the reasons just mentioned, the schedule ought to be received as an imperfect exhibit of the total number and amount of the claims which it was intended to include, the aggregate sum which it, in fact, presents is sufficient to enlist the best exertions of the government to procure for the claimants the indemnity to which they are justly entitled. Whether we regard the enormity of the agressions out of which those claims spring, the numerous persons interested in the liquidation of them, or the vast amount at issue, the government of the United States can never be indifferent to their satisfactory adjust ment; and however unpromising appearances may, from time to time The schedule was referred, by the house of representatives, to its committee on foreign affairs, which, on the 23d of February last, made a report, of which a copy is herewith transmitted. The committee conclude their report by observing that the confidence which they entertain "that the measures within the competence of the executive will eventually prove successful, is measured by the reliance which is felt in the justice and honour of foreign governments. Till those measures shall have been exhausted and found inadequate, the time will not have arrived for legislative interference." It is the expectation of the claimants, of congress, and of the country, that a renewed appeal shall be made, through the executive, to the justice of France. The committee properly remark in their report, that "justice could not, perhaps, with propriety be enforced from other powers before, nor dispensed with after, it shall have been done to our citizens by this powerful, prosperous, and magnanimous state, of whose elevated and liberal policy the people of the United States have had too many proofs to fear a final difference of sentiment on this subject." It should be added that France may be properly considered as the parent source of all the wrongs inflicted by the continental powers during the revolutionary wars, on the commerce of the United States; and both for that reason, and on account of the greater magnitude of the claims upon France, which, according to the schedule, is nearly double the amount of those upon all the other continental governments together, there is an evident fitness in that nation's taking the lead in equitable reparations, which took the lead in the original agression It is, therefore, the president's wish that you should again bring the subject of the American claims to the view of the French government, and demand that satisfaction which has been so long unjustly withheld. In executing this duty, it may not be unprofitable that you should present to its notice a brief review of the treatment which has been given, by the present govern. ment, since the final overthrow of Napoleon, to similar demands when urged by your predecessor and yourself. In the exhibition of such a review, you will remind that government that, as early as the 9th November, 1816, Mr. Gallatin transmitted a note to the Duke de Richelieu, the French secretary of state for the department of foreign affairs, in which he made a general statement of the claims of our citi. zeus arising under various illegal acts of the French government, and demanded the indemnity due on their account. Having received no answer to that note, on the 26th December following, Mr. Gallatin requested an interview for the purpose of communicating to this government the result of his application. On the 16th of January, 1817, the Duke appointed the 20th of the same month for the interview, at which Mr. Gallatin reports him to have said, in answer to the basis which he had proposed in his note of the 9th of November, "that his (the Duke's) offer would fall very short of our demand; that he would not go beyond an indemnity for vessels burnt at sea, and for those, the proceeds of which had been only se. questered and deposited in the Caisse d'Amortissement," He added "that he would make his proposal in writing, and that this would not be attended with much delay." On the 13th April, 1817, in another interview with Mr. Gallatin, he announ ced "that he had concluded not to give a written answer to the note of the 9th of November." The pretext for this alteration in the Duke's determination, was stated to be the unexpected amount of claims against France which were brought forward by European powers. He said, "that, whilst unable to face the engagements which superior force had imposed on them, it was utterly im possible for his Majesty's government to contract voluntarily new obligations. They were not willing to reject, absolutely and difinitively, our reclamations in toto: they could not, at this time, admit them. What he had now verbally communicated could not, for many reasons, become the ground of an official answer to my note. He had, therefore, concluded that a silent postponement of the subject was the least objectionable course, since, having now made our demand for indemnity in an offi. cial manner, the question would be left entire for discussion at some more favourable time, after France was in some degree disentangled from her present difficulties." Mr. Gallatin states, in a despatch under date the 12th of July, 1817, narrating the substance of a conversation recently held with the same French minister, that the Duke said "that he wished it be clearly understood that the postponement of our claims for spoliations was not a rejection} that a portion of them was consider. ed as founded in justice; that be was not authorized to commit his majesty's government by any positive promise; but that it was their intention to make an arrangement for the discharge of our just demands as soon as they were extricated from their present embarrassments." In April, 1818, when communicating to the legislative chambers of France the engagements which had been contracted to foreign powers, the |