A short summary of the most important incidents in this lengthy controversy will show how far the motives, by which attempts are made to justify this delay, are absolutely indefensible.
When I took office I found the United States applying in vain to the justice of France for the satisfaction of claims the validity of which has never been doubted, and has now been admitted by France herself in the most solemn manner. The long-standing nature of these claims, their entire justice, and the aggravating circumstances from which they sprang, are too well known to the American people for a further description of them to be necessary. It is enough to say that for a period of ten years and more, with the exception of a few intervals, our commerce has been the object of constant aggression on the part of France, which usually took the form of condemning ships and cargo in virtue of arbitrary decrees, contravening both international law and the stipulations of the treaties, while ships were burnt on the high seas, and seizures and confiscations took place under special Imperial rescripts in the harbours of other nations then in French occupation or under French control.
Such, as is admitted, has been the nature of our grievances, grievances in many cases so flagrant that even the authors of them never denied our right to satisfaction. Some idea of the extent of our losses may be gained by considering the fact that the burning of vessels at sea and the seizure and sacrifice in forced sales of American property, apart from awards to privateers before condemnation was pronounced, or without such formality, have brought the French Treasury a sum of twenty-four millions of francs, apart from considerable customs dues.
For twenty years this business has been the subject of negotiations, which were interrupted only during the short period when France was overwhelmed by the united forces of Europe. During this period, when other nations were extorting their claims at the bayonet's point, the United States suspended their demands in consideration of the disasters that had overpowered the brave people to whom they felt themselves bound, and in consideration of the brotherly help which they had received from France in their own times of suffering and danger. The effect of this prolonged and fruitless discussion, disastrous both to our relations with France and to our national character, was obvious, and my own course of duty was perfectly clear to me. I was bound either to insist upon the satisfaction of our claims within a reasonable period or to abandon them entirely. I could not doubt that this course was most conformable to the interests and honour of the two countries.
Instructions were therefore given from this point of view to the Minister who was once more sent to demand satisfaction. When Congress met on October 10, 1829, I considered it my duty to refer to these claims and to the dilatory attitude of France, in terms sufficiently strong to draw the serious attention of both countries to the matter. The French Minister then in power took offence at the message, under the idea that it contained a threat, upon which basis the French Government did not care to negotiate. The American Minister refuted the interpretation which the French authorities attempted to place upon the message, and reminded the French Minister that the President's message was a communication addressed not to foreign governments, but to the Congress of the United States, and that in this message it was his duty under the Constitution to provide this body with information upon the state of the Union with reference both to foreign as well as to domestic affairs. That if, again, in the performance of this task he deemed it his duty to call the attention of the Congress to the consequences which might result from strained relations with another Government, one might reasonably suppose that he acted under a sense of duty in thus frankly communicating with another branch of his own Government, and not that he acted with the object of threatening a foreign Power. The French Government was satisfied and negotiations were continued. These were concluded by the treaty of July 4, 1831, which partially recognised the justice of our claims, and promised payment to the amount of twenty-five millions of francs in six annual instalments. The ratifications of the treaty were exchanged at Washington on February 2, 1832. Five days later the treaty was presented to Congress, which immediately passed the Acts necessary to secure to France the commercial advantages conceded to her by the arrangement. The treaty had been previously ratified with full solemnity by the King of France, in terms which are certainly no mere formality: "We, regarding the above convention as satisfactory in all and each of the conclusions which it contains, declare, both for ourselves and for our heirs and successors, that it is accepted, approved, ratified, and confirmed, and by these presents, signed with our hand, we do accept, approve, ratify, and confirm it, promising upon our faith and word as King to observe and to secure its observance inviolably without contravention at any time and without permitting direct or indirect contravention for any reason or pretext whatsoever." The official announcement that ratifications had been exchanged with the United States reached Paris while the Chambers were in session. The extraordinary delays prejudicial to ourselves by the introduction of which the French Government have prevented the execution of the treaty, have already been explained to Congress. It is sufficient to point out that the session then opened was allowed to pass without any effort being made to obtain the necessary funds; that the two following sessions also went by without any action resembling a serious effort to secure a decision upon the question; and that not until the fourth session, nearly four years after the conclusion of the treaty, and more than two years after the exchange of ratifications, was the law referring to the execution of the treaty put to the vote and rejected.
Meanwhile the United States Government, in full confidence that the treaty concluded would be executed in good faith, and with equal confidence that measures would be taken to secure payment of the first instalment, which was to fall due on February 2, 1833, negotiated a bill for the amount through the Bank of the United States. When this bill was presented by bearer the French Government allowed it to be protested. Apart from the loss incurred by non-payment, the United States had to meet the claims of the bank, which asserted infringement of its interests, in satisfaction of which this institution seized and still holds a corresponding amount from the State revenues.
Congress was in session when the decision of the Chambers was communicated to Washington, and an immediate announcement of this decision on the part of France was a step which was naturally expected from the President. The profound discontent shown by public opinion and the similar excitement which prevailed in the Congress, made it more than probable that a recourse to immediate measures for securing redress would be the consequence of any appeal made upon this question to Congress itself.
With a sincere desire to preserve the peaceful relations which have so long existed between the two countries, I wished to avoid this step if I could be convinced that in thus acting, neither the interests nor the honour of my country would be compromised. Without the most complete assurance upon this point I could not hope to discharge the responsibility which I assumed in allowing the Congress to adjourn without giving it an account of the affair. These conditions seemed to be satisfied by the assurances which were given to me.
The French Government had foreseen that the feeling in the United States aroused by this second rejection of the credit vote would be as I have described it, and prompt measures had been taken by the French Government to anticipate the consequences. The King personally expressed through our Minister at Paris his profound regret for the decision of the Chambers and promised to send a ship of war with despatches to his Minister here, forthwith authorising him to give every assurance to the government and the people of the United States that the treaty would be in any case faithfully performed by France. The warship arrived and the Minister received his instructions. Professing to act in virtue of these instructions he gave the most solemn assurances that immediately after the new elections, and as soon as ever the Chamber would allow, the French Chambers would be convoked and that the attempt to obtain the necessary credit would be renewed; that all the constitutional power of the King and his Ministers would be exerted to secure this object. It was understood that he pledged himself to this end, and this Government expressly informed him that the question ought to be decided at a date sufficiently near to enable Congress to learn the result at the commencement of the session.
Relying upon these assurances, I undertook the responsibility of allowing Congress to separate without offering any communication upon the matter.