should be exerted to accomplish the object; and that the result should be made known early enough to be communicated to Congress at the commencement of the present session." These pledges had not been redeemed; farther negotiation, and acquiescence in the refusal to execute the treaty, were equally out of the question. America might retaliate by imposing heavy duties on the manufactures and productions of France but the president did not recommend this mode of warfare, both because it might raise questions about the tariff, and because it could not be executed without in some degree embarrassing the trade of the United States themselves. He suggested a different remedy. "It is my conviction that the United States ought to insist on a prompt execution of the treaty, and in case it be refused or longer delayed, to take redress into their own hands. After the delay on the part of France of a quarter of a century in acknowledging these claims by treaty, it is not to be tolerated that another quarter of a century is to be wasted in negotiating about the payment. The laws of nations provide a remedy for such occasions. It is a well settled principle of the international code, that where one nation owes another a liquidated debt, which it refuses or neglects to pay, the aggrieved party may seize on the property belonging to the other, its citizens or subjects, sufficiently to pay the debt, without giving just cause of war. This remedy has been repeatedly resorted to, and recently by France herself, towards Portugal, under circumstances less unquestionable. The time at which resort should be had to this or any other mode

of redress, is a point to be decided by Congress. If an appropriation shall not be made by the French Chambers at their next session, it may justly be concluded that the government of France has finally determined to disregard its own solemn undertaking, and refuse to to pay an acknowledged debt. In that event, every day's delay on our part will be a stain on our national honour, as well as a denial of justice to our injured citizens. Prompt measures, when the refusal of France shall be complete, will not only be most honourable and just, but will have the best effect upon our national character. Since France, in violation of the pledges given through her minister here, has delayed her final action so long that her decision will not probably be known in time to be communicated to this Congress, I recommend that a law be passed, authorising reprisals upon French property, in case provisions shall not be made for the payment of the debt, at the approaching session of the French Chambers. Such a measure ought not to be considered by France as a menace. Her pride and power are too well known to expect any thing from her fears, and preclude the necessity of a declaration that nothing partaking of the character of intimidation is intended by us. She ought to look upon it as the evidence only of an inflexible determination on the part of the United States to insist on their rights."

The bill, which the French government had prepared to be laid before the Chambers during the present session, had not yet been presented, when this message was received in Paris in the beginning of January. The French minis ters considered the passages, which

we have quoted, to contain threats which rendered it inconsistent with the honour of France to maintain diplomatic intercourse with America. They immediately recalled their minister at Washington; and Mr. Livingston, the envoy of the United States in Paris, was informed that his passports were at his disposal. Mr. Livingston did not apply for them, having preferred to wait the instructions of his government on this new state of matters. The notification to Mr. Livingston had been made on the 13th of January: two days afterwards, in order to shew that they did not wish to find pretexts in the president's message for receding from their engagements, ministers laid the bill to authorise the payments before the Chamber of Deputies. In introducing it, M. Humann the minister of finance, stated "that the government knew too well the institutions of the United States to consider the president's message as being the voice of the country. The spirit and the letter of those institutions authorise us to consider the document already referred to as merely the expression of the idea of one individual, so long as that idea shall not have received the sanction of the other two powers of the American Union. The message is an act of government as yet incomplete, and consequently it cannot lead to one of those determinations by which France usually replies to a menace or to a reproach. France imputes neither to the people nor to the government of the Union, the sentiments and the propositions expressed by the president of the United States. We desire to look upon his message to the Congress as merely the inconsiderate act of

an isolated power; and the honour of the nation renders it not the less imperative on us to persist in the policy which has ever been that of the king's governmentthe policy of good faith." All accordingly that the government proposed to do was, to insert in the bill a clause providing that no money should be paid, till it had been ascertained that the government of the United States had not adopted any measures injurious to French interests.

In America, in the mean time, the recommendations of the president had been taken into consideration by the Senate and House of Representatives. The Senate was much less clamorously inclined than the president had been. On the 14th January, that body came to a resolution, that it was inexpedient to adopt any legisla tive measures in regard to the state of affairs between the United States and France; thus refusing to adopt any of the retaliating measures which the president had recommended, or to give the executive authority to adopt them in any given circumstances. General Jackson's party was stronger in the House of Representatives; but even there nothing followed upon the message. The commit. tee to whom it was referred, so far as regarded foreign relations, passed the subject over without a report; being equally disinclined to put the president in the wrong, and unwilling to recommend the uncertain consequences of hostile measures, which a little time and patience might avoid, and which could in no way accelerate the payment of the money. As therefore none of the recommendations of the message had been followed out, and as no measure hostile

to French interests had been adopted, every thing seemed to have been done that was desired by the French government, or required by the bill. The French ministers themselves had taken the distinction between the executive and the legislature of the United States. They had declared that they had no disclaimers or explanations to ask in regard to the sentiments expressed by the president in a message to Congress, and that the expression of these sentiments would present no obstacle to the payment of the money, unless Congress adopted them, by passing measures or conferring powers for carrying them into effect. Congress had declined to adopt such measures or to confer such powers; therefore, the French ministers, on their own showing, had nothing more to ask.

The course which had been followed by Congress, was known in Paris, before the committee on the bill made its report on the 28th of March-a report which was said to have been purposely delayed, till it should be seen what conduct the American legislature would pursue in regard to the president's message, and the recal of the French minister. The report was in favour of the bill. The committee adopted the views of the government in relation to the president's message. "The committee," said they, "could not refrain from sharing in the public feeling which the message of the president of the United States had so warmly excited. The language he made use of, the measures of redress he proposed to Congress, notwithstanding some disavowals called for by old recollections and the greatness of France, have

naturally wounded the national sensibility; and if we had deliberated only under the impression of his words, we should have in vain endeavoured to prevent the voice of French pride from speaking louder than even the voice of justice. But the Congress put aside the proposals of the president; it was convinced that France would not allow to be forced on her obligations which she was disposed to fulfil, and that she would refuse to threats, that which might be obtained from her of right. We feel inclined to think that the American Congress will have persevered in this confiding reserve; but if, at the close of its session, its ulterior resolutions should coincide with the president's message, by granting him the powers he has called for, the interest and dignity of France, which your committee looks upon as intimately united, would require that the payment of what we owe should be deferred, until after the satisfaction that is due to us shall be made." clause of the ministerial bill was varied, only by inserting "the dignity" as well as "the interests" of France.-"The payments of the sum of 25,000,000 fr. shall be made, only if the government of the United States proceeds to no act derogatory to the dignity and interests of France."

The

The bill, although keenly opposed on the same grounds on which it had been successfully resisted the year before, was carried, on the 18th of April, by a majority of 289 against 137. One amendment was moved to reduce the grant to 12,000,000 francs; another, to delay the question till next session; a third, that no interest should be paid on the debt, or at least that interest

should run only from the date of the passing of the bill. They were all lost; but an amendment moved by general Valazè was more successful. It provided, that no part of the money was to be paid, until the French government should have received satisfactory explanations with regard to the president's message. This was a total departure from the rule which the ministers had laid down; it was the application of a principle which they had expressly disavowed Yet the ministers, abandoning their declaration that the message was not to be regarded, unless it was confirmed by acts of the legislature, adopted the amendment; and, with their consent, it was incorporated in the bill.

Mr. Livingston, when he was first informed in January that his passports were at his disposal, had stated in a note to the French government, that the message was neither intended to threaten nor to impute bad faith to the French executive, and that the message itself disavowed in terms any intention to menace. This note, which the minister gave in on his own responsibility, was approved of by the president; and his approval was officially intimated to the French government. Mr. Livingston, at the same time, received instructions to quit Paris, if the matter was not forthwith settled, and the Constitution frigate was dispatched to carry him home. On the 25th of April, he again addressed the French Cabinet in

The

regard to the obnoxious clause now introduced into the bill. He stated that his government could never recognise a right in any power to interfere with, or ask explanations concerning, the communications which one branch of the national councils was called on by the constitution to make to another: that all intention to use threats had already been voluntarily disavowed in January, before it was contemplated to make the explanation a condition of payment; that every thing had thus been done, which could be reasonably asked or honourably conceded: that the new demand now proposed to be made, was not only useless, but might be offensive, and certainly would not be complied with. French ministry, however, adhered to the bill as the Deputies had passed it, and the American minister returned to Washington, leaving behind him a charge d'affaires, authorised to receive payment of the money. His applications were fruitless; and he too, in the end of the year received instructions to leave Paris. The French government made no formal application for an explanation. The president, in his message in December of the present year, declared that he would never give one, nor allow any foreign country to interfere between the executive and the legislature of the United States. So stood the dispute in the end of December, when the British cabinet tendered its mediation, of which both parties willingly accepted.