the investigation of the subject.  Whilst, however, he indulged the hope that these delays would be abandoned, and that the rights of our citizens, which had been urged for so many years, would at length be taken up for examination, he learned with surprise and regret that His Majesty’s Government had determined to insist that they should be discussed in connection with the question of the construction of the eighth article of the Louisiana treaty of cession.  Against this determination he strongly but ineffectually remonstrated in a letter to Mr. De Villele, dated the 12th November, 1822.

It is notorious that the Government of the United States, whenever requested by that of His Majesty, have uniformly agreed to discuss any subject presented for their consideration, whether the object has been to obtain the redress of public or private injuries.  Acting upon this principle, the question of the eighth article of the Louisiana treaty was, upon the suggestion of the minister of France, made the subject of a voluminous correspondence, in the course of which all the arguments of the parties respectively were fully made known to each other and examined.  The result of this discussion has been a thorough conviction on the part of the Government of the United States that the construction of that article of the treaty contended for by France is destitute of any solid foundation and wholly inadmissible.  After a discussion so full as to exhaust every argument on that question, the attempt to renew it in connection with the question of the claims of our citizens appeared to the Government of the United States to be a measure so contrary to the fair and regular course of examining controverted points between nations that they instructed Mr, Sheldon, their charge d’affaires, to prepare and present a note explaining their views of the proceeding, which he delivered on the 11th of October, 1823.  To this note no answer has ever been received.

I have the express instructions of the Government again to call the attention of that of His Majesty to this subject, and to insist that the claims of our citizens may continue to be discussed as a distinct question, without connecting it in any way with the construction of the Louisiana treaty.  The two subjects are in every respect dissimilar.  The difference in the nature and character of the two interests is such as to prevent them from being blended in the same discussion.  The claims against France are of reparation to individuals for their property taken from them by undisputed wrong and injustice; the claim of France under the treaty is that of a right founded on a contract.  In the examination of these questions the one can impart no light to the other; they are wholly unconnected, and ought on every principle to undergo a distinct and separate examination.  To involve in the same investigation the indisputable rights of American citizens to indemnity for losses and the doubtful construction of a treaty can have no other effect than to occasion an indefinite postponement of the reparation due to individuals or a sacrifice on the part of the Government of the United States of a treaty stipulation in order to obtain that reparation.  The United States would hope that such an alternative will not be pressed upon them by the Government of His Majesty.