usual promulgation." President Jefferson, on December 21, 1801, proclaimed the treaty in the usual form as "duly ratified," and enjoined all persons to observe and fulfill the same. Mr. Madison, on December 18, 1801, before the convention had been thus recommitted to the Senaté, instructed Mr. Livingston, minister at Paris, "that the President does not regard the declaratory clause as more than a legitimate inference from the rejection of the Senate of the second article." It is on the action thus stated that the claims against the United States for French spoliations are based. (See infra, §§ 227, 228, 248.) By the treaty of 1800 the United States Government agreed to renounce its claims against France for prior spoliations, in consideration of the renunciation by France, among other things, of its claims against the United States for its alleged breach of its guarantee (in its treaty of February 6, 1778) of the French possessions in America. Mr. Clay, Sec. of State, to President J. Q. Adams, May 20, 1826. MSS. Report The French-American treaty of 1800, as signed in Paris on September 13, 1800, * By the fourth article of the treaty with France, of 1800, it was provided that "property captured but not yet definitely condemned shall be mutually restored." It was held that a decree of condemnation by a circut court, from which an appeal had been taken to the Supreme Court, was not a definitive condemnation within the meaning of the treaty. U. S. r. Schooner Peggy, 1 Cranch, 103. The convention of 1800 between the United States and France, enabling the people of one country holding lands in the other to dispose of the same by testament or otherwise, and to inherit lands in the respective countries without being obliged to obtain letters of naturalization, rendered useless the performance of the condition required by the law of Maryland to sell to a citizen within ten years, and the conventional rule applied equally to the case of those who took by descent, under the act, as to those who acquired by purchase without its aid. Chirac v. Chirac, 2 Wheat., 259. The stipulation in the convention of 1800,"that in case the laws of either of the two States should restrain strangers from the exercise of the rights of property with respect to real estate, such real estate may be sold, or otherwise disposed of, to citizens or inhabitants of the country where it may be," was held not to affect the rights of a French subject, who takes or holds by the convention, so as to deprive him of the power of selling to citizens of this country; and was held to give a French subject who had acquired lands by descent or devise (and perhaps in any other manner), the right during life to sell or otherwise dispose thereof, if lying in a State where lands purchased by an alien would immediately be escheatable. Although the convention of 1800 has expired by its own limitation, yet the instant the descent was cast on a French subject during its continuance his rights became complete under it, and could not be affected by its subsequent expiration. I bid. By the fourth article of the treaty of 1800 it was provided that " property captured, and not yet definitively condemned, or which may be captured before the exchange of ratifications (contraband goods destined to an enemy's port excepted), shall be mutually restored." It was further provided that this provision should take effect from the signature of the convention, and that, "if, from the date of the said signature, any property shall be condemned contrary to the intent of the said convention, before the knowledge of this stipulation shall be obtained, the property so condemned shall, without delay, be restored or paid for." It was held that the case of a Portuguese brig, captured by a French schooner in July, 1800, and afterwards recaptured by an American vessel and taken to St. Kitts, where she was adjudged to be restored to her former owners, on payment of salvage, did not come within this article; and that the demand of the French minister for the vessel, or the salvage, from the United States, was not well founded. The word captured, as a technical and descriptive term, does not include the meaning of the term recaptured, and should not be given such effect in the above article. 1 Op., 111, Lincoln, 1802. The proceeds of a French vessel captured and condemned prior to the 30th of September, 1800, were, subsequently to that date, but in pursuance of the decree of condemnation of the circuit court, paid over in moieties to the captors and the Government respectively. The decree of condemnation was afterwards reversed by the Supreme Court, and the moiety distributed under it to the United States was paid over to the owners of the vessel. It was advised that the United States were not liable, under the fourth article above quoted, for the moiety which had been paid to the captors. 1 Op., 114, Lincoln, 1802. "This opinion was principally based upon the ground that the judg ment of the circuit court was a definitive condemnation, within the meaning of the treaty. It had, in fact, already been decided by the supreme court that the condemnation was not so final, and that the case came within the fourth article. This decision had not been seen by the Attorney-General, when the above opinion was given, and upon his attention being called to it, he modified his opinion to the extent of advis ing that the decision of the Supreme Court be followed as binding in this particular instance'; and added that, although they (the court) have fixed the principle for themselves, and thereby bound others, in reference to the case on which they have adjudicated, it can, I conceive, extend no further. In all other cases in which the Executive or the courts are obliged to act, they must decide for themselves, paying a great deference to the opinions of a court so high an authority as the Supreme Court of the United States, but still greater deference to their own convictions of the meaning of the laws and Constitution of the United States, and their oaths to support them." 1 Op., 119, Lincoln, 1802. The following summary of the negotiations with France down to 1803 is condensed from Mr. J. C. Bancroft Davis's Notes to the Treaties of the United States: "On the 25th of January, 1782, the Continental Congress passed an act authorizing and directing Dr. Franklin to conclude a consular convention with France on the basis of a scheme which was submitted to that body. Dr. Franklin concluded a very different convention, which Jay, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, and Congress did not approve." Franklin having returned to America, the negotiations then fell upon Jefferson, who concluded the convention of 1788. This was laid before the Senate by President Washington on the 11th of June, 1789. "On the 21st of July it was ordered that the Secretary of Foreign Affairs attend the Senate to-morrow and bring with him such papers as are requiste to give full information relative to the consular convention between France and the United States. Jay was the Secretary thus 'ordered.' He was bolding over, as the new department was not then created. The bill to establish a Department of Foreign Affairs had received the assent of both houses the previous day, but had not yet been approved by the President. Jay appeared, as directed, and made the necessary explanations. The Senate then resolved that the Secretary of Foreign Affairs under the former Congress be requested to peruse the said convention, and to give his opinion how far he conceives the faith of the United States to be engaged, either by former agreed stipulations or negotiations entered into by our minister at the Court of Versailles, to ratify in its present sense or form the convention how referred to the Senate. Jay made a written report on the 27th of July that, in his judg ment, the United States ought to ratify the convention; and the Senate gave its unanimous consent. The statute to carry the convention into effect was passed the 14th of April, 1792. "Three articles in the treaties with France, concluded before the Con stitution, became the cause of difference between the two powers: "1. Article XI of the treaty of alliance, by which the United States, for a reciprocal consideration, agreed to guarantee to the King of France his possessions in America, as well present as those which might be acquired by the treaty of peace. "2. Article XVII of the treaty of amity and commerce, providing that each party might take into the ports of the other its prizes in time of war, and that they should be permitted to depart without molestation; and that neither should give shelter or refuge to vessels which had made prizes of the other unless forced in by stress of weather, in which case they should be required to depart as soon as possible. "3. Article XXII of the same treaty, that foreign privateers, the enemies of one party, should not be allowed in the ports of the other to fit their ships or to exchange or sell their captures, or to purchase provisions except in sufficient quantities to take them to the next port of their own state. "Jefferson, who was the minister of the United States at the Court of Versailles when the Constitution went into operation, was appointed Secretary of State by President Washington on the 26th of September, 1789. He accepted the appointment and presented Short to Neckar as chargé d'affaires of the United States. "Gouverneur Morris, of New York, who had been in Europe from the dawn of the French revolution, and had been in regular friendly correspondence with Washington, was appointed minister to France on the 12th of January, 1792. (See supra, §§ 107 ft.) "Morris * did not succeed in gaining the good-will of a succession of Governments, with which he had little sympathy; for he writes Jefferson, on the 13th of February, 1793: Some of the leaders here who are in the diplomatic committee hate me cordially, though it would puzzle them to say why.' See supra, §§ 84, 85, 107 ff.; infra, § 150. "When Morris was appointed minister, the commercial relations between the two countries were satisfactory to neither. Exceptional favors to the commerce of the United States, granted by royal decree in 1787 and 1788, had been withdrawn and a jealousy was expressed in France in consequence of the act of Congress putting British and French commerce on the same basis in American ports. No exceptional advantages had come to France from the war of the Revolution, and American commerce had reverted to its old British channels. "Jefferson greatly desired to conclude a convention with France which should restore the favors which American commerce had lost, and bring the two countries into closer connection. On the 10th of March, 1792, he instructs Morris: We had expected ere this, that in consequence of the recommendation of their predecessors, some overtures would have been made to us on the subject of a treaty of commerce. Perhaps they expect that we should declare our readiness to meet on the ground of treaty. If they do we have no hesitation to declare it. Again, on the 28th of April, he writes: 'It will be impossible to defer longer than the next session of Congress some counterregulations for the protection of our navigation and commerce. I must entreat you, therefore, to avail yourself of every occasion of friendly remonstrance on this subject. If they wish an equal and cordial treaty with us, we are ready to enter into it. We would wish that this could be the scene of negotiation.' Again, on the 16th of June, he writes: "That treaty may be long on the anvil; in the mean time we cannot consent to the late innovations without taking measures to do justice to our own navigation.' 66 The great revolution of the 10th of August, and the imprisonment of the King, were duly reported by Morris; and Jefferson replied on the 7th of November: It accords with our principles to acknowledge any Government to be rightful which is formed by the will of the nation substantially declared There are some matters which I conceive might be transacted with a Government de facto; such, for instance, as the reforming the unfriendly restrictions on our commerce and navigation." * ** To these instructions Morris answered on the 13th of February, 1793, three weeks after the execution of the King, and a fortnight after the declaration of war against England: You had instructed me to endeavor to transfer the negotiation for a new treaty to Amer ica, and if the revolution of the 10th of August had not taken place. * I should, perhaps, have obtained what you wished. * The thing you wished for is done, and you can treat in America if you please. In the same dispatch Morris spoke of the sending out of M. Genet, without mentioning to me a syllable either of his mission or his errand,' and said that the pompousness of this embassy could not but excite the attention of England.' "On the 7th of March Morris wrote to Jefferson that 'Genet took out with him three hundred blank commissions, which he is to distribute to such as will fit out cruisers in our ports to prey on the British commerce,' and that he had already mentioned the fact to Pinckney, and had desired him to transmit it. "The new condition of affairs caused by the war induced the President to submit a series of questions to the members of his cabinet for their consideration and reply. It would seem from a passage in Mr. Jefferson's Ana that the second of these questions-'shall a minister from France be received?'-was suggested by the Secretary of State. An account of the meeting of the Cabinet at which these questions were discussed will be found in 9 Jeff. Works, 142. (See supra, § 137.) "The first two questions were unanimously answered in the affirmative-that a proclamation for the purpose of preventing citizens of the United States from interfering in the war between France and Great Britain should issue, and that Genet should be received; but by a compromise, the term 'neutrality' was omitted from the text of the proclamation." (See, as to this proclamation, infra, §§ 402, 402a.) "The policy which Washington favored denied France nothing that she could justly demand under the treaty, except the possible enforcement of the provision of guarantee; and that provision was waived by Genet in his first interview with Jefferson. We know,' he said, 'that under present circumstances we have a right to call upon you for the guarantee of our islands. But we do not desire it.' (Infra, §§ 248, 402; supra, § 84.) "It is not likely that the purposes of Genet's mission were fully comprehended by the American Government. By a treaty in 1762 (first made public in 1836), France ceded Louisiana to Spain. Genet was instructed to sound the disposition of the inhabitants of Louisiana towards the French Republic, and to omit no opportunity to profit by it should circumstances seem favorable. He was also to direct particular attention to the designs of the Americans upon the Mississippi. "He continued to claim and exercise the right of using the ports of the United States as a base for warlike operations, and, as the discussions went on, his expressions became stronger, and more contemptuous toward the President and the Government of the United States. (Supra, § 84; infra, § 400.) "His instructions contemplated a political alliance between the two Republics. This was never proposed. He did propose, however, the rearrangement of the debt due to France on the basis of the payment of a larger installment than was required by the contract, to be expended in the purchase of provisions in the United States; and the conclusion of a new commercial treaty. Jefferson declined the former, and as to the latter said that the participation in matters of treaty given by the Constitution to the Senate would delay any definite answer. "In retaliation, the executive provisory council of the French Republic demanded the recall of Morris. In communicating the fact to him, Secretary Randolph said, 'You have been assailed, however, from |