posed to exist in some of the British colonies in America showing what slaves were carried away before the exchange of the ratifications of the Treaty of Ghent, especially from the Chesapeake. In this condition of things many Southern claims, amounting to about $600,000, were allowed, and the claimants received their 75 per cent., while the Maryland and Virginia claims were held in suspense. This circumstance gave rise to a clash of interests among the claimants. As the principal of the claims before the commission promised, in spite of Mr. Clay's computation, to consume almost the whole of the fund, leaving little or nothing for interest, those whose claims had been allowed sought to have the time of the commission extended, in order that evidence in opposition to the Chesapeake claims might be obtained from abroad; and for this purpose they applied to Congress. The Chesapeake claimants maintained that when they had shown that their slaves were taken by the British forces during the war they raised, in connection with such other testimony as they had been able to present, a presumption that the slaves remained in the United States till the ratification of the treaty of peace, and that unless countervailing testimony was produced their claims should be allowed without further delay. On the other hand, certain agents for Georgia and Louisiana claimants, in a memorial to the House of Representatives, alleged that important testimony had been obtained to show that the negroes captured in the Chesapeake had, except such as were enlisted in the black corps, and a few others, been sent away during the war by every opportunity, and consequently were not carried away after peace was restored. This testimony, though taken in conformity with certain rules of the commission, had, they said, by a majority of its members been suppressed, on the ground that it was not returned under seal according to the alleged practice of all judicial tribunals. They contended that the time should be extended to enable them to retake this testimony as well as to obtain testimony from abroad. As an additional reason for such an extension they said that a majority of the commissioners had exposed the fund by deciding to admit hearsay testimony and even the depositions of slaves in support of the claims of their masters. By the opinions of the commissioners it appears that Mr. Cheves opposed the admission of hearsay

1Am. State Papers, For. Rel. VI. 855.

5627-25

testimony as well as the testimony of slaves, while Messrs. Seawell and Pleasants voted for the admission of both, as in many cases the only evidence of certain facts that could be obtained. As to what were called the suppressed depositions, Mr. Cheves was in favor of admitting them, while Messrs. Seawell and Pleasants opposed it.'

Views of Commismissioners.

In view of the conflicting positions of the claimants, some desiring and other antagonizing an extension of the existence of the commission, Mr. Wickliffe, chairman of the Committee of the Judiciary of the House of Representatives, before whom the matter was pending, sought to learn the wishes of the commissioners. On the 19th of March 1828 Mr. Pleasants answered, with the concurrence of Mr. Seawell, that as to the necessity of an extension of the term of the commission the commissioners had suggested nothing; that he supposed the design in extending the term was to enable a certain class of claimants, whose cases had been decided and who had under the act of Congress received 75 per cent of their principal, to procure testimony, chiefly from abroad, to prevent claimants from Maryland and Virginia, commonly called the Chesapeake claimants, from establishing their claims, the immediate effect of which would be to stay the proceedings in many cases which were sub judice and ready for hearing. The commission had, however, left it to the claimants to consider the question of extension. The fund would nearly or quite pay the principal amounts due for all the slaves if, as was believed to be the fact, it should be found that the other property for which claims were made was destroyed before the peace and therefore did not come within the provisions of the treaty. In the 75 per cent that had been paid out no interest was included, the question of interest having in all cases been reserved until it should be known whether the fund would more than suffice to pay the whole of the principal. The ground on which the 75 per cent had been adjudged to the claimants who had received it was "the evidence produced by the claimants, positive or presumptive, to satisfy the commissioners or a majority of them," that their claims came within the provisions of the conventions. The claims on the definitive list numbered, said Mr. Pleasants, between 1,000 and 1,100. Nearly 700 had been examined; of these a number had been

Am. State Papers, For. Rel. VI. 882-892.

finally decided, except as to interest, and some had been rejected, while the remainder (of the 700) were for the most part "partially decided, awaiting the decision of the question of presumptive evidence." The claims that had not been examined were deferred, owing to the character of the evidence by which they were supported and the question whether it would prove that the property was within the United States at the date of the ratification of the Treaty of Ghent. This was, said Mr. Pleasants, "precisely what the commissioners have to determine, it being, indeed, the pivot on which turns the successful or unsuccessful decision of the claim." Mr. Pleasants added that if the bill to extend the time so as to enable claimants to obtain evidence from abroad should not pass, it might still be necessary to extend the term of the commission somewhat beyond the rising of Congress, in order to enable the board to complete the business before it. But on this point he said that he could not speak with certainty at the moment.

Mr. Cheves presented a separate answer. He said that the claims which had been examined, and which numbered between 600 and 700, were principally of two classes. The first class consisted of those which had been allowed. These were supported by specific testimony, positive or circumstantial," which had been "satisfactory to the board, or a majority of it, proving that the slaves claimed in each case were within the territory or waters of the United States at the date of the ratification of the treaty." The second class consisted of claims which had not been allowed, but which were kept under consideration. The specific testimony sustaining these, except in relation to slaves found on the "Halifax list," consisted only of proof of the taking by the enemy at different periods during the war. "The taking," said Mr. Cheves, "appears to have been principally between the beginning of June, 1813, and the beginning of December, 1814; a few only were taken before June, 1813, and a good many appear to have been taken as late as the 5th of December, 1814." As to the slaves identified on the "Halifax list," these being included in the second class of examined claims, which were held under consideration, Mr. Cheves observed that what was known as the "Halifax list" was not one of the documents furnished by the British Government in execution of the third article of the convention of 1822, but one which the British commissioner placed in the hands of the American commissioner at the time of the

dissolution of the joint commission, with liberty to retain it, if he thought proper to do so, but without stating how it was procured or from whence it came, but treating it as an authentic document. The American commissioner of course received it. It purported to be “a return of American refugee negroes who have been received in the province of Nova Scotia from the United States of America between the 27th April, 1815, and the 24th October, 1818." Mr. Cheves said, in conclusion: "The claimants of the second class, contend

"1. That, on principles of law, the proof of the taking at any period during the war throws the burden on the opposing party of proving that the slaves claimed were actually carried out of the territory and waters of the United States before the ratification of the treaty; and that, on failure to do so, these claimants are entitled to a full participation in the fund.

2. That the proof of the taking at any time during the war, with the circumstantial evidence that has incidentally come before the board, and additional testimony which they have filed to sustain this proposition, authorizes the presumption that all the slaves contained in the second class remained in the United States until the ratification of the treaty, and ought to be allowed. In the cases of more recent capture it is urged that this presumption is the stronger.

"3. It is contended that, in addition to this general presumption, the Halifax document should be taken in itself as sufficient evidence that all those contained therein were taken away after the ratification of the treaty.

"The claimants of the first class resist the first of these propositions as unfounded in principle, and the second and third as unsustained by the evidence relied upon. They contend, on the contrary, that the evidence before the board repels these presumptions; and they allege that they can disprove them, if allowed time to procure the testimony, some of which, they state, is to be obtained from abroad. The object of the bill from the Senate is understood to be to grant this time. On the merits of this bill I presume I am not expected to give any opinion; but it is proper I should say that, if it be rejected, some further time may nevertheless be necessary to close the business of the board, but whether any further time will be necessary, or, if any, what time, I am at present unable to say. If a more particular knowledge of the points in controversy be desired, it will be obtained by refer ence to the printed arguments of counsel on either side. The first of these was filed by the claimants of the second class in the beginning of November last, when these points were, for the first time, submitted for hearing, although they had, at the first meeting of the board, been mentioned as points that would be raised.

"I believe the foregoing statement of facts affords the best information I can give on the questions growing out of the resolutions of the House of Representatives, except that which directs an inquiry whether the fund now remaining to be distributed by the Commissioners be sufficient to satisfy the principal sum claimed for refugee slaves and other property entered on the definitive list?' To this I reply that it is not sufficient, and that the claims for slaves alone, (considering the decision of the board that claimants for slaves originally taken from other States, but found in Georgia, or the waters thereof, at the ratification of the treaty, shall be entitled to the Georgia average,) if all claims for that species of property be allowed, will alone absorb the whole fund received from Great Britain."i

On the 25th of April 1828, many members of Close of Commission. the House of Representatives having desired a more explicit expression of the opinion of the commission as to the proposed extension of its duration, Messrs. Cheves, Pleasants, and Seawell joined in a letter to Mr. Wickliffe, in which they said that two members of the board, Messrs. Pleasants and Seawell, were of opinion "that no extension of time for the purpose of obtaining testimony by those whose claims have been allowed should be granted,” and

1 Am. State Papers, For. Rel. VI. 860-863. In the manuscript records of the joint commission under Article III. of the convention of 1822 it appears that on December 29, 1824, Messrs. Livingston, Johnson, and Bouligny, attorneys for Louisiana claimants, inquired whether proof of slaves having been found on board of British vessels "at a time shortly before the ratification of the treaty (of Ghent), will not throw the burden of their having been removed subsequent to the ratification on His Britannic Majesty's Government?" Mr. Jackson, the British commissioner, replied that the question could become a matter of consideration only when each case should be brought before the board, but that he had "no hesitation in adding unequivocally his opinion that H. B. Majesty can not under the convention be required to make compensation for any slaves who shall not be proved by the claimants to have been within the Territory or Waters of the United States at the moment of the exchange of the ratifications of the Treaty of Ghent." Mr. Cheves, on the other hand, though he did not feel at liberty "to declare any opinion" on the question "until he had maturely considered it," said he could not hesitate to declare "that according to his views of the nature and principles of evidence, whether those of positive institution, or those which he considers as belonging to immutable truth, there may be many cases in which the precise proof which the British commissioner deems necessary, would not be required." He concurred with the British commissioner "so far as to be of opinion that the question propounded, being one concerning the weight and effect of testimony, will most properly be left open till it occurs in a particular case."