The National Intelligencer And Washington Advertiser

WASHINGTON CITY.
FRIDAY, MARCH 19, 1802.

There seems to be some disposition at present to excite a belief, that the abandonment of the claims of our merchants for losses by French spoliations is chargeable on the present administration.

How stands the matter of fact? The 2d article of the French convention reads thus:

"The ministers plenipotentiary of the two parties not being able to agree at present respecting the treaty of alliance of 6th Feb. 1778, the treaty of amity and commerce of the same date, and the convention of 14th November 1788, nor upon the indemnities mutually due or claimed; the parties will negotiate further on these subjects at a convenient time, and until they may have agreed upon these points, the said treaties and convention shall have no operation, and the relations of the two countries shall be regulated as follows, &c."

Article 5th "The debts contracted by one of the two nations with individuals of the other, or by the individuals of one with the individuals of the other, shall be paid, or the payment may be prosecuted in the same manner as if there had been no misunderstanding between the two States. But this clause shall not extend to indemnities claimed on account of captures or confiscations."

The Senate refused to advise and consent to the ratification of the treaty unless the 2d article above recited was struck out; to this President Adams agreed, and the treaty was so ratified by him Feb. 18th, 1801. The votes of the Senate, as published in the newspapers at that time, were for striking out the 2d article;

Messrs. Armstrong, Bingham, Chipman, Dayton, D. Foster, Hillhouse, Hindman, Howard, Latimer, J. Mason, Morris, Paine, Read, Ross, Schureman, Tracy, Wells. 17.

Against striking out the 2d article:
Messrs. Anderson, Baldwin, Bloodworth, Brown, Cocke, T. Foster, Franklin, Greene, Langdon, Livermore, Marshall, S. T. Mason, Nicholas. 13.

Striking out the 2d article was striking out the effect of all the labors of our envoys on that subject, and was in fact agreeing to make a treaty without making any provision for the claims of our merchants, or to keep alive the demand; and suffering the 5th article to stand as it does, effectually deprived them of any chance for relief, and was an abandonment of their claims. So it was justly understood by Bonaparte, as he declares in his ratification, bien entendu it being well understood, that by this retrenchment the two states renounce the respective pretensions which are the object of the said article. When his ratification was laid before the Senate of the United States, they say, that Bonaparte understood it as they intended, and they vote almost unanimously, that it ought to be considered as justly and fully ratified: it was said at the time, and never denied, that Messrs. Wells, Hillhouse, Chipman, and D. Foster, were the only persons in the negative. Mr. Hillhouse, and some of the others have often been heard to declare, that they were opposed to having any treaty with France. We trust the federalists will not disown their own measures, which have been acquired with so much labor and expense, from the recall of Monroe to the ratification of the treaty.