return of gratitude to its authors, from the great body of citizens most deeply interested in the country's welfare."*

When Congress convened, the President was unable to announce the result of the French mission, but shortly afterward General Davie returned to America with the Convention, which was submitted to the Senate in December of 1800. There, after debate, the Federalist Senators who had been opposed to the mission struck out the two articles which referred to the treaties of 1778 and put off indemnities to a future negotiation, and thus abridged, Adams ratified the Convention in February of 1801.† He nomiHe nominated James A. Bayard, ministerplenipotentiary, to convey the ratification to France and to continue the intercourse thus happily begun, ‡ but Bayard did not accept the appointment, and the concluding act in the restoration of complete harmony was left to Adams' successor.

One of Jefferson's first acts was to send John Dawson, of Maryland, to France in the frigate Baltimore.|| Dawson carried with him the Convention as it had been revised in the Senate in February of 1801. The Senate had expunged the second

*Life and Works of Adams, vol. i., p. 575.

The proceedings in secret session of the Senate are in Annals of Congress, 6th Congress, 2d session, pp. 767-778; Benton, Abridgment of Debates, vol. ii., pp. 492–496.

See Adams' message to the Senate, March 2, 1801, Richardson, Messages and Papers, vol. i., p. 315.

|| McMaster, vol. ii., p. 594.

441

article of the Convention, to which Napoleon agreed, "provided that by this retrenchment the two States renounce the respective pretensions which are the object of the said article." This was agreed to by the Senate December 19, 1801, and thus a source of constant litigation was opened. The United States made an even exchange of the claims of her citizens against France, as opposed to the claims of French citizens against the United States, but no provision was made by the latter to recompense her citizens citizens thus despoiled; the government "dishonestly declined to recognize those very claims by which she obtained release.'*

One of the results of the dispute with France and England was the arbitration between the latter and the United States of American claims against Great Britain growing out of captures made, under the orders in council, and of British claims against the United States growing out of our failure completely to enforce its neu-. trality. The American commissioners were Christopher Gore and William Pinkney, of Maryland; the British commissioners were Sir John Nicholl (afterward succeeded by Maurice Swabey) and John Anstey. These commissioners were to choose by lot (in case they could not agree otherwise) a fifth commissioner, and

* McMaster, vol. ii., p. 606; Schouler, United States, vol. i., pp. 489-491; Allen, Our Naval War With France, chap. ix.

the choice fell upon Colonel John Trumbull, of Connecticut. Shortly after the commissioners began their meetings, controversy arose as to their power to determine their jurisdiction regarding several of the claims presented for a decision, the division of opinion at times becoming so pronounced that the British commissioners refused to attend the meetings. The controversy was finally settled, and the commissioners (after an interruption in their session from July 30, 1799, to February 15, 1802, pending the diplomatic adjustment of their difficulties) finished their business February 24, 1804. Through the operation of the stipulation under which the commissioners sat, it is estimated that Americans recovered from Great Britain the sum of $11,650,000, while the awards against the United States aggregated only $143,248.14.*

The depredations committed by European powers upon American commerce gave rise to many claims for indemnity. The final account with England was settled by the War of 1812. The claims against Spain were adjusted in 1819, when Florida was purchased. In 1830 a treaty was concluded with Denmark to settle the claims against that country, but these were offset in part by the claims of that kingdom against the United States. The claims against Naples were not adjusted before 1832, when a

squadron was sent to enforce payment.* The claims against Holland were presented for payment by France, under the treaty of 1832, and were paid. By the Conventions of 1800 and 1803, depredations committed under the decrees of the French Republic were disposed of. In 1812 Joel Barlow made an effectual attempt to adjust the indemnity claims against France; but, before anything could be accomplished, Napoleon had been compelled to retreat from Moscow, which dissipated all thoughts of an agreement.

In 1816 Gallatin went to France and entered upon a long tedious negotiation which lasted nearly fifteen years, being terminated by William C. Rives in 1831. On July 4, 1831, a treaty was concluded and ratified by which France agreed to pay the United States 15,000,000 francs, which was only about a fifth of the actual spoliations. Part of this was offset by claims of France against the United States amounting to 1,500,000 francs. But for several years the French Chamber of Deputies refused to appropriate the money necessary to put the treaty into effect, and it was not until 1836, when Great Britain offered mediation, that the French government took steps to discharge the obligation. The commission appointed

* Griffis, Life of M. C. Perry, chap. xi.

House Ex. Doc. 117, 24th Congress, 1st session; American State Papers, Foreign Relations, vol. v., pp. 598-629.

Todd, Life of Barlow, chap. ix.

by Congress to execute this treaty allowed claims against Holland, Spain, and Naples.*

Part of the claims arising from French depredations committed before 1801 were settled by the convention of 1803, when the United States assumed them (to the amount of about $3,750,000) as part of the price paid for Louisiana. Under the second article of the convention of 1800, there was a class of claims which gave rise to a vast amount of discussion in and out of Congress and which have never yet been fully settled.† In order to relieve the country of the obligations imposed by the treaties of 1778 and 1788, the United States relieved France of all direct obligations to the claimants, who were thus debarred from the opportunity of prosecuting their claims against France. In 1802 application for relief was made to Congress; but, though a committee made a report setting forth the history of the spoliations, no action was taken. In 1807 a committee again reported favorably, and year after year such reports continued to be made until, by 1885, the total in both Houses

See American State Papers, Foreign Relations, vol. vi., pp. 384-553; House Ex. Doc. 117, 24th Congress, 1st session; Treaties and Conventions of the United States, pp. 1309–1312.

For a discussion of these, see Wharton, Digest of International Law, vol. ii., pp. 714-728.

*

443

reached 48, of which but three were unfavorable - those of 1818 in the Senate, and of 1822 and 1824 in the House. In 1835 the Senate passed a bill appropriating $5,000,000, but it failed in the House for lack of time. In 1846 and 1855 similar bills passed both Houses, only to be vetoed by Presidents Polk and Pierce, respectively. Finally, in 1885, an act was passed referring the entire matter to the Court of Claims. That body threw out many of the claims because of insufficient or defective evidence, but reported upon those that could be proved. Bills appropriating money to pay the valid claims were passed from time to time, but nothing has been done. On June 6, 1896, President Cleveland vetoed a bill (House Bill 8293) appropriating $1,027,314.09 as a partial payment upon these claims, but there the matter ended, and some of the old claims are still pending. ‡

* Richardson, Messages and Papers, vol. iv., pp. 466-469 and vol. v., pp. 302-322.

† Ibid, vol. ix., pp. 683-687.

‡ Allen, Our Naval War With France, chap. xii. On these claims, see also the articles in the North American Review (October, 1825; January and October, 1826; and July, 1827); American Quarterly Review (September, 1831; June, 1835); Boston Monthly Magazine (January, 1826); Democratic Review (February, 1844); Hunt's Merchants' Magazine (February, 1845; October, 1846); Atlantic Monthly (August, 1870; Febru. ary, 1891); Magazine of American History (July, 1884).

444

The Presi

Meanwhile the political situation had undergone a change. The agitation over the Alien and Sedition Laws, the various arrests for sedition, the hatred of England, etc., combined with the work of the Republicans, had gradually undermined Federal influence and power and ultimately drove them from office. The Congressional elections of 1798 had been hotly contested, and the Federalists succeeded in a quarter where the Republicans least expected. Out of the 37 Southern Congressmen, the Federalists won 22-electing 8 out of the 19 from Virginia, 7 out of 10 in North Carolina, 5 out of 6 in South Carolina, and the 2 from Georgia. John Marshall, John Randolph and Henry Lee were among the new members from Virginia, and William Henry

*

* Bassett, Federalist System, p. 276; Schouler, United States, vol. i., pp. 457-458.

Henry Adams, John Randolph, p. 40.

Adams' "Midnight Judges "

Harrison appeared as a delegate from the territory Northwest of the Ohio. By this time the Federalists had become separated into two wings, which differed almost as widely as did the more moderate Federalists from the Republicans. The radical wing, headed by Hamilton, was convinced that the country was seriously menaced by dangers that threatened the very foundations of our social system. The moderate element, headed by John Adams, John Marshall and the Southern Federalists, was under no such delusion. These Republicans, without sharing the optimistic delusions of Democrats like Jefferson or Gallatin, accepted the broader construction of the Constitution not only as expressing its true meaning, but as conducing to the best interests of the country. The radicals formed only a small minority of the party. But this, "through the great ability of its

leader, Alexander Hamilton, had up to the election of Adams, to a great extent determined the policy of the country." For some time after the election of Adams there was no occasion for divergence between the two wings of the party, nor could the final separation be attributed wholly to the failure of the French mission. The radical element wanted to declare war, but the moderates withheld their assent; and because he did not concur in Hamilton's ideas of what a vigorous administration should be, Adams was defeated in the Presidential election of 1800 and the Federalist party was overthrown. On the other hand, could Adams have disarmed the opposition of the radicals, and could he, moreover, have won to his support the men who really agreed with him as to the foreign and domestic policy of the government, probably he would have been reëlected in 1800, and the course of American history for the next quarter of a century might have been quite different. Even as it was, the election of 1800 was not so much a victory of Republicanism over Federalism as a victory of Republicanism over the Federalism of Alexander Hamilton.

Save for a short period, the House of Representatives had always been under the control of the Republicans since the organization of this party. As Gibbs says, "the opposition were daily becoming more compact and firm; they saw the discouragements of their adversaries; they felt their own

445

advantages and the strength of their position, and they neglected nothing which organization, discipline, and vigorous action could effect.”

The Congress elected in 1798 met in December of 1799, and this was the last time that Congress would hold a session at Philadelphia, for the District of Columbia had already begun to assume shape and the beginnings of the Federal city had been laid. Major Pierre Charles L'Enfant had been selected by Washington and Jefferson to draw the plan for the Federal city, and during the spring of 1791 had been engaged on the task. Jefferson had wished the design to be a sort of checker board, but L'Enfant broke the monotony of this arrangement by inserting a number of avenues running at acute angles. This plan was accepted by Washington, and L'Enfant was retained to supervise the work. The commissioners in charge decided to advertise some of the lots for sale in October of 1791, and requested L'Enfant to furnish the engraver with a plan for publication. This he refused to do on the plea that speculators would purchase the best locations in the "vistas and architectural squares " and " permanently disfigure the city" by "huddles of shanties." For this insubordination he was dismissed by Washington on March 1, 1792. Andrew Ellicott was thereupon deputized to continue the laying out of the city, and soon prizes were offered for the best plans for the President's house and the capitol. On