And he further observes:

An arrangement which, amid so many difficulties, has secured for claims of our citizens (prosecuted in vain for the last twenty years, and a large portion, if not the whole, of which has been considered as desperate) a sum sufficient in all probability to pay every cent justly due, and nearly treble the amount pronounced to be due by the commission charged with their examination here; which has at the same time extinguished the claims of French subjects against the United States to the amount of near five millions of francs, by a stipulation to pay a million and a half; and has finally gotten rid of a most embarrassing claim (founded on the language of a treaty) of perpetual privileges in the ports of one of the States of the Union, by a temporary measure intrinsically advantageous to ourselves, and in the definite settlement of these unpleasant questions has laid a a lasting foundation of harmony and friendship between two countries having the most important common interests, political and commercial. An arrangement marked by these features can not, I trust, fail to be satisfactory, and to justify the responsibility which, under the discretionary powers the President has been pleased to confide to me, I have not hesitated to assume both in the progress and termination of this complex negotiation.

A treaty possessing these characteristics may be acceptable to one party; but it is not surprising that it should not be very much so to the other, if it be true that he has stipulated to pay every cent of claims believed to be hopeless and desperate; that he has received less than one-third of what was due to his own subjects; and, instead of an equivalent for perpetual privileges has received only what is intrinsically advantageous to the other party.

It is quite natural that the American negotiator should have commended to the favorable consideration of his Government the work of his own hands. If he had magnified it some excuse might have been found in the complacency with which we too often contemplate our own achievements. But, perhaps, the feelings of the other party have not been duly consulted. It may not have been sufficiently considered that what is won by skill in diplomacy on one side might have been lost by the want of it on the other; and the pretension of superior sagacity on our side was not likely to be soothing to the pride of the French Nation, or to reconcile it to engagements against which strong prejudices prevailed. It remains to be seen whether harmony and friendship between the two countries, the lasting foundation of which Mr. Rives felicitates his Government with having been laid by him shall, in the sequel, have been actually cemented.

Although the rejection of the bill of appropriation by the Chamber of Deputies could not have been entirely unexpected by the Executive of the United States from the information which it possessed, the event produced very great surprise and much sensation with the people of the United States and with Congress. It appears, from a note of Mr. Livingston to the Count de Rigny, who had succeeded the Duc de Broglie as minister of foreign affairs, under date the 26th July, 1834, that, subsequent to the rejection of the bill, the King's Government had given him assurance "that no time should be lost in again submitting to the Chambers the law for giving effect to the convention with the United States." On the 5th June, 1834, the French minister at Washington addressed a note to the Secretary of State, in which, after announcing that he had received, two days before, the dispatch which his Government had transmitted to him by the French brig Le Cuirassier, in consequence of the unexpected rejection of the law for granting to the King's ministers the funds necessary for the execution of the treaty, he proceeds to say:

I hastened to communicate to you, on the day after, the sincere regrets, the explanations, and the ulterior views of His Majesty's Government on this subject, with the cordiality which has prevailed throughout this negotiation.

*

*

The King's Government still adheres inviolably to the treaty concluded between the two Governments: first, because it has signed it, and also, doubtless, because it perseveres in believing it to be founded on right, on reason, and on the perfectly reciprocal interest of the two nations. The views and principles maintained with respect to the treaty, in the speech of the Duc de Broglie. on the 31st of March, are the views and doctrines of the whole cabinet.

In examining, sir, the report of the discussion which solemnly took place on the subject of the treaty in our Chamber of Deputies, you must have been convinced of the steady and enlightened firmness with which it was defended. However, the Chamber, making use of its constitutional power, and, moreover, from considerations of contested right and simple scruples as the most special guardian of the public fortune, but not from any sort of hostility toward the United States, refused, as appears by the debates, by a small majority, its consent to the financial execution of the treaty.

The King's Government, sir, after this rejection has deliberated, and its unanimous determination has been to make an appeal from this first vote of the present Chamber to the next Chamber, and to appear before the new legislature with its treaty and its bill in hand. It flatters itself that the light already thrown upon this serious question, during these first debates, and the expression of the public wishes becoming each day more clear and distinct, and finally a more mature examination will have, in the meantime, modified the minds of persons, and that its own conviction will become the conviction of the Chambers. The King's Government, sir, will make every legal and constitutional effort to that effect and will do all that its perservering persuasion of the justice and of the mutual advantages of the treaty authorize you to expect from it. Its intention, moreover, is to do all that our Constitution allows to hasten as much as possible the period of the new presentation of the rejected law.

Such, sir, are the sentiments, such the intentions of His Majesty's Government. I think I may rely that, on its part, the Government of the Republic will avoid with forseeing solicitude, in this transitory state of things, all that might become a cause of fresh irritation between the two countries, compromit the treaty, and raise up an obstacle perhaps insurmountable to the views of reconciliation and harmony which animate the King's council.

The force of these assurances, in regard to the views and purposes of the French Government, could not be resisted. The President yielded to it, and accordingly, in a note of the Secretary of State to the French minister, under date the 27th June, 1834, after stating that the note of M. Serrurier had been submitted to the President, and duly considered by him, the Secretary says:

Though fully sensible of the high responsibility which he owes to the American people in a matter touching so nearly the national honor, the President, still trusting to the good faith and justice of France, willing to manifest a spirit of forbearance, so long as it may be consistent with the rights and dignity of his country, and truly desiring to preserve those relations of friendship which, commencing in our struggle for independence, form the true policy of both nations, and sincerely respecting the King's wishes, will rely upon the assurances which M. Serrurier has been instructed to offer, and will, therefore, await with confidence the promised appeal to the new Chamber.

The President, in desiring the undersigned to request that his sentiments on this subject may be made known to His Majesty's Government, has instructed him also to state his expectation that the King, seeing the great interests now involved in the subject and the deep solicitude felt by the peopie of the United States respecting it, will enable him, when presenting the subject to Congress, as his duty will require him to do at the opening of their next session, to announce at that time the result of that appeal and of His Majesty's efforts for its success.

It was not at Washington alone that the French Government was given by the Executive of the United States to understand that the President, confiding in the assurances which he had received, would await the result of the renewed efforts to pass the bill of appropriation through the new French Chambers. Instructions were transmitted from the Department of State under date the 27th of June, 1834, addressed to Mr. Livingston, in which, after adverting to M. Serrurier's note, the Secretary says:

You will see that although no explanation is afforded of the causes which led to the rejection of the bill by the Chamber, yet the assurance of the King's adherence

to the treaty and of the determination of the King and his Government to take all constitutional means in their power both to induce the Chamber to carry it into effect and to hasten the time when it may be acted upon by the Chamber, are so strong that, without imputing the grossest bad faith, it is impossible altogether to reject them. It was, moreover, evident from the discussion, in the Chamber that the assurances which had been made to you of the sincerity of the ministers were, in a great degree at least, well founded; indeed, the speeches of the Duke de Broglie, in which the obligations of France on the subject were urged with an ability and frankness that reflect the highest honor on that eminent minister, were perhaps sufficient to remove all doubt on that point.

In pursuance of these instructions Mr. Livingston, in a note addressed to the French minister of foreign affairs under date the 29th July, 1834, says:

Instructions which I had in some manner anticipated in my note to your excellency of the 26th instant have this day been received. They make it my duty (one which I perform with pleasure) to assure His Majesty's Government that the President feels the most perfect confidence in the assurances which have been given of His Majesty's desire to fulfill the stipulations of the convention of July, 1831, with the United States, through this legation. and particularly in those contained in an official communication, made by Mr. Serrurier to the Secretary of the United States, that the law for carrying the treaty into effect should be presented to the new Chambers with the just hope that a more intimate knowledge of the justice of its provisions and of the interest of the two nations would insure its passage.

In a subsequent note of Mr. Livingston, as late as the 3d of August, 1834, in which he urges, with great earnestness, an early convocation of the Chambers for the purpose of again presenting the bill to their consideration, he declares that

The utmost reliance is placed in the assurances of His Majesty's ministers, and that not a doubt is entertained of the sincerity of their desire to procure the means of executing the treaty.

The committee take great pleasure in expressing their concurrence with the President and Mr. Livingston in the belief of the anxious desire of the King and his Government faithfully to execute the treaty. It is due to frankness and justice to declare that they have not seen any reason whatever to occasion doubt or distrust as to the sincerity of the King. It would be incredible that the King should not be desirous to execute a treaty in the formation of which he had a personal and particular agency, which was concluded by his voluntary authority, and which had finally received his deliberate sanction. Independent of the obligations of justice and good faith the head of any government would be prompted, under such circumstances by personal character and pride, to desire the success of a leading measure of his administration.

It having been thus arranged between the two Governments that they should await the issue of a renewed appeal to the French Chambers for the requisite appropriation of funds to execute the treaty, the committee have examined into the causes which have induced the President to recommend to Congress the adoption of a measure of selfredress, to be used in the contingency of their refusal to make the appropriation. The President states, in his message to Congress, that

The pledges given by the French minister, upon receipt of his instructions, were that, as soon after the election of the new members as the charter would permit, the legislative Chambers of France should be called together, and the proposition for an appropriation laid before them; that all the constitutional powers of the King and his cabinet 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.

The President continues:

I regret to say that the pledges made through the minister of France have not been redeemed. The new Chambers met on the 31st July last, and although the subject of fulfilling treaties was alluded to in the speech from the throne, no attempt was made by the King or his cabinet to procure an appropriation to carry it into execution. The reasons given for this omission, although they might be considered sufficient in an ordinary case, are not consistent with the expectations founded upon the assurances given here, for there is no constitutional obstacle to entering into legislative business at the first meeting of the Chambers. This point, however, might have been overlooked had not the Chambers, instead of being called to meet at so early a day that the result of their deliberations might be communicated to me, before the meeting of Congress, been prorogued to the 29th of the present month-a period so late that their decision can scarcely be made known to the present Congress prior to its dissolution. To avoid this delay, our minister at Paris, in virtue of the assurance given by the French minister in the United States, strongly urged the convocation of the Chambers at an earlier day, but without success. It is proper to remark, however, that this refusal has been accompanied with the most positive assurances, on the part of the executive government of France, of their intention to press the appropriation at the ensuing session of the Chambers.

The pledge given by the French minister, to which the President is presumed to refer, is contained in the following paragraphs of his note to the Secretary of State of the 5th June, 1834:

The King's Government, sir, will make every loyal and constitutional effort to that effect, and will do all that its persevering persuasion of the justice and of the mutual advantages of the treaty authorize you to expect from it. Its intention, moreover, is to do all that our constitution allows; to hasten as much as possible the period of the new presentation of the rejected law.

In his answer to that note of the French minister, the Secretary of State expresses the expectation of the President, that the King will enable him, when presenting the subject to Congress, as his duty will require him to do, at the opening of their next session, to announce at that time, the result of that appeal, and of his Majesty's efforts for its success. If the French minister had, in a reply to this note, assented to the expectation of the President, there would have been a positive and explicit engagement, and the subsequent omission to convoke the Chambers in time to admit of the communication to Congress, at its present session, of the result of their deliberations, would have been an indisputable violation of it, but he made no reply, or, if he did, it has not been communicated to the Senate.

At Paris the French Government was strenuously urged by Mr. Livingston, first, to submit the appropriation to the Chamber of Deputies, which assembled on the 31st July, and that not being acceded to, secondly, that they should be specially called early in the autumn for that purpose. To these demands, Admiral De Rigny, the minister of foreign affairs, at first replied, in his note of the 31st of July, 1834, to Mr. Livingston:

The King's Government, I do not hesitate to repeat, will eagerly seize the first occasion again to submit to the deliberation of the legislature the bill requisite for carrying into effect the convention of 1831, and will use every exertion in its power to obtain an issue to this important question conformable to the wishes of the two cabinets. But certainly it will not be requisite for me to explain the reasons which will prevent the subject from being brought before the Chambers during the short session which the King will open this day.

This session, the only object of which is to give the Chambers an opportunity of organizing themselves, will be almost immediately prorogued, and it will be needless to demonstrate to you, sir, the impossibility of keeping a legislature assembled at a season of the year, during which in France, as in the United States, and in most countries under a constitutional form of government, parliamentary labors are habitually suspended.

I regret, then, that on this point His Majesty's Government is unable to accede

to the desire which you have expressed to me, as to the demands that the Chamber should be convoked in the autum in order to determine on the subject of the bill which was presented during the last session, it would be equally impossible for the King's Government to enter into any positive engagement to that effect. But as soon as they can be assembled you may be assured that among the subjects first submitted to their deliberations will be the treaty, all the stipulations of which we sincerely desire to obtain the means of executing." In reply to an intimation of Mr. Livingston, that the President could not avoid laying before Congress, at the present session, a statement of the position of affairs, nor under any circumstances permit the session to end on the 3d of March next, as it must, without recommending such measures as he might deem that justice and the honor of the country should require, Admiral De Rigny expresses the hope, "that if the President of the United States should not consider himself at liberty to dispense with calling the attention of Congress to the state of this affair, he will only do so for the purpose of communicating the reasons for his confidence in the honesty of our intentions, and of counteracting any tendency to the adoption of measures, the more likely to be regretted, as they could only impede the settlement of a question from which we are sincerely desirous to exclude any new difficulties.

Mr. Livingston having again in his note of the 3d of August urged, with great earnestness and force, the fulfillment of the pledges given by Mr. Serrurier, at Washington, as he understood them, Admiral De Rigny, in his reply of the 7th of that month, finally says:

On reading over Mr. Serrurier's note I am unable. I confess, to find in it any engagement or expression which is at variance with what I have had the honor to communicate to you myself.

The King's minister at Washington has said nothing inconsistent with truth when he spoke of our disposition to do all that the constitution would permit in order to hasten the period for the presentation of the rejected bill. But you are aware that the execution of this plan is subordinate to considerations not to be lost sight of for the sake of the very end which both Governments are anxious to attain, and Mr. Serrurier can not have meant anything else in the part of his note which has thus been particularly regarded at Washington.

You know, sir, the motive which would prevent the presentation to the Chambers of the projet de loi respecting the convention of 1831, during the session, which will be immediately prorogued. Reasons, equally peremptory and equally clear, would forbid assembling the Chambers before winter for the special purpose of voting on the question, and it is with regret, I repeat, that we find ourselves unable to accede to the desire of the President of the United States on this point. But, besides the impossibility of keeping the Chambers together at a time of the year during which parliamentary labors are habitually suspended, and when the deputies already appear impatient to return to their homes, there is another consideration applying to the treaty of 1831, the importance of which can not have escaped your attention. Placed, as you are, in a situation to judge of everything here which could have relation to the question, you must have been convinced with what circumspection (managemens) it has to be treated before the legislature and the public: and your own observations on this point must have enabled you to appreciate the system of prudence and procrastination (adjournement) which the King's Government had prescribed for itself. These precautions are equally necessary and proper at present, and, without entering here into details, the want of which your own penetration may sasily supply, it is to be doubted, Í must say, whether in the actual state of things an untimely (anticipée) assembling of the Chambers for the purpose of securing by their assent the execution of the treaty of 1831, would produce those advantages which are, at Washington, expected from such a course.

After these explanations, in which your Government will, I flatter myself, discover as much frankness as there is in the communications which it has instructed you to make, I repeat that as soon as the Chambers can be assembled, the projet de loi, which they discussed in their last session, will be one of the first subjects presented to them, and this new delay, I hope, will be far from injuring the prospect of success of an affair in which the assistance of time has already been usefully invoked.

Admiral De Rigny concludes his note by observing:

The moderation of the Chief Magistrate of the Republic of the United States is a new testimonial of the nobleness of his character and of the enlightened principles by which his policy is guided. He will continue, we doubt not, to display in