In a note of Aug. 7, 1888, the Marquis de la Vega de Armijo stated that his Government intended to satisfy, as far as lay in its power, the Government of the United States, and expressed confidence that the Cortes would vote the money if the payment of the Mora claim "coincided" with the payment of the claims of Spain. This seemed to be the programme of the Cortes, for a resolution introduced by Señor Lastres, in February, 1888, repudiating the Mora settlement, was defeated by a vote of 170 to 47.

Mr. Bayard, Secretary of State, Sept. 17, 1888, declared that "so far as the minister's note declares the inviolability of the settlement arrived at in the Mora case, and its removal from the sphere of discussion, it is satisfactory to this Government, and fulfills the expectations that had been confidently entertained in regard to the observance by the Spanish Government of the agreement heretofore concluded." Mr. Bayard was not indisposed to include the "payment of the Mora claim with the "settlement" of other claims, if this could be done within a reasonable time; but he declared that the "sum agreed to be paid " in the Mora case might “fairly be treated as a debt due and withheld by Spain from the United States, upon which interest should justly be computed from the time the agreement was concluded."

Again, on Dec. 18, 1888, Mr. Bayard declared that the claim had been "conclusively adjusted for a specific sum and only awaits payment by the Spanish Government."

Mr. Blaine, Secretary of State, May 20, 1889, adopted Mr. Curry's language, that by the settlement "the Mora case was raised from the debatable and negotiable ground it had previously occupied to the height of an international compact, binding upon both Governments." In the same paper Mr. Blaine said " that by the most formal and sacred of international compacts the faith and honor of the Spanish Government have been directly pledged to its actual payment at a particular time, in a declared manner, and in a specified amount." The President, said Mr. Blaine, was " unwilling to allow the execution of the absolute settlement of the Mora case to be made dependent upon the further settlement of other claims."

Mr. Foster, Secretary of State, Dec. 20, 1892, writing to Mr. Snowden, American minister at Madrid, referred to a joint resolution introduced in the Senate by Mr. Dolph, and said that, unless something definite was done, "there was great probability that the joint resolution would be passed, or some action taken by Congress looking to the enforcement of the Mora claim."

Again, Feb. 2, 1893, Mr. Foster, writing to Mr. Snowden with regard to a remark made by the latter to the Spanish minister of foreign affairs as to the possible conclusion of a "convention for the adjustment of the Mora and such other claims as Spanish subjects

may have against our Government," said: "The Mora claim has been regarded by this Government as already a liquidated and adjusted claim, only awaiting an appropriation by the Spanish Cortes for its final payment. It should not, therefore, be placed in the category of unadjusted claims.”

Mr. Gresham, Secretary of State, writing to Mr. Taylor, Mr. Snowden's successor at Madrid, July 14, 1893, said: "Of course, this Government, as above stated, could not recognize parliamentary difficulties in the way of securing an appropriation for the Mora claim, as in any way relieving Spain from her distinct and unconditional obligation to pay that claim." Mr. Gresham also referred to a resolution, introduced at the last session of Congress, authorizing and requesting the President "to take such measures as in his judgment may be necessary to consummate the aforesaid agreement by the collection of the amount agreed upon with interest from the time the said amount should have been paid under the aforesaid agreement." Mr. Gresham observed that, unless the Spanish Government speedily changed its attitude, "a similar resolution, perhaps one more peremptory," would be introduced, with a strong probability of its passage, at the next session. "The Spanish Government," declared Mr. Gresham, "agreed to indemnify the United States for the flagrant wrong done to Mr. Mora, by the unconditional payment of a sum of money. The justice of the demand could not fairly be questioned, and now nothing short of full and prompt payment will be acceptable to this Government."

In a telegram to Mr. Taylor, Dec. 21, 1893, Mr. Gresham declared that "the claim stood on an unconditional promise of payment."

Mr. Taylor, in an interview with Mr. Moret, who had again become minister of state, Dec. 29, 1894, presented the following as the "conclusions" of his Government, which he said he believed to be "irrevocable:"

1. That, when the proposition of settlement was accepted, "an international convention was completed which precludes the discussion of all questions except that of payment.

"2. That the unconditional promise to pay carried with it the obligation to pay in a reasonable time, which had long ago expired, seven years have now elapsed since such unconditional promise had been

made.

6

"3. That my Government will not consent that payment shall depend upon the willingness of the Cortes to make the appropriation." "4. That it will not consent that payment shall await the final adjustment of claims asserted by Spain against us.'”

Mr. Gresham, Feb. 14, 1894, said: "This presentation of the conclusions of this Government is approved."

Feb. 26, 1894, Mr. Moret replied, in an elaborate memorandum, to Mr. Gresham's letter of July 14, 1893, to Mr. Taylor, a copy of which Mr. Taylor had left with him. In this memorandum Mr. Moret denied that there was ever any illegal confiscation of property in the case, or any offense against an American citizen, or any flagrant injustice of any kind. The judgments against Mora were legal. The question was not "one of those matters of strict justice which require immediate reparation." This was so, even though "the only practical and proper thing that remains refers to the carrying out of the agreement of 1886." It was also an error to say that the Spanish Government profited by the proceeds of the Mora property. Moreover, the agreement to pay the claim was conditional, not unconditional. The matter was to be concluded by means of a bill in the legislature. And the Cortez would no doubt provide for the payment of the claim, if the payment should "coincide" with the payment of the claims of Spain.

Mr. Gresham, on receiving this memorandum, telegraphed to Mr. Taylor that the agreement was "unconditional," that all departments of the Spanish Government were bound by it, and that no one department could nullify it.

Further discussing the subject, in a dispatch to Mr. Taylor, June 5, 1894, Mr. Gresham declared that the question "whether, however, the Spanish Government did or did not " receive the income from Mora's estates, was "immaterial to the rights of this Government or the obligations of Spain."

Delay in the payment of the money continued; and at length by a joint resolution of Congress, approved March 2, 1895, the President was requested to insist upon the payment of the sum agreed upon between the governments of Spain and the United States in liquidation of the claim of Antonio Maximo Mora against the Government of Spain, with interest from the time when the said amount should have been paid under the agreement."

once.

Instructions in accordance with the resolution were sent to the American legation in Madrid, and representations in a similar sense were made to the Spanish minister at Washington, urging an immediate payment on account and an arrangement for the early payment of the remainder, should Spain be unable to pay the full amount at The insurrection in Cuba had now become flagrant. On July 20, 1895, the Spanish minister at Washington handed to the Secretary of State the text of a resolution of the council, approved by the Queen Regent, stating that, "in view of the facts shown of record and of tl conclusions formulated by the ministers on the subcommittee of reference," it had been decided to notify the United States that Spain, "in fulfillment of the engagement contracted by the notes exchanged on the 29th of November and 7th of December, 1886," was prepared

to proceed to the payment of a million and a half of pesos in three instalments, the form and date of payment to be determined by agreement. August 10, 1895, an agreement, signed by Mr. Olney, Secretary of State, Mr. Dupuy de Lôme, the Spanish minister, and two representatives of the claimant, and other persons interested in the claim, was concluded at Boston, for the payment, on or before Sept. 15, of a million and a half Spanish gold pesos, "in full discharge and satisfaction not only of the principal sum agreed to be paid in liquidation of the Mora claim, so called, but of any and every amount that might be claimed to be due as interest on said principal sum." This sum, amounting to $1,449,000 American gold, was duly paid by a draft on London for £295,412 16s. 11d.

Señor Moret to Mr. Curry, Nov. 29, 1886, For. Rel. 1894, App. I. 368; Mr. Curry to Mr. Moret, Dec. 7, 1886, id. 368; Messrs. Shipman, Barlow, et al., to Mr. Bayard, March 7, 1888, id. 369; Mr. Curry to Mr. Bayard, No. 315, April 25, 1888, id. 370; Mr. Moret to Mr. Curry, May 12, 1888, id. 372; Mr. Rives to Mr. Curry, No. 305, June 23, 1888, id. 373; Mr. Curry to the Marquis de la Vega, June 30, 1888, id. 375; Marquis de la Vega to Mr. Curry, Aug. 7, 1888, id. 376; Mr. Bayard to Mr. Strobel, No. 323, Sept. 17, 1888, id. 377; Mr. Bayard to Mr. Belmont, min. to Spain, No. 4, Dec. 18, 1888, id. 378; Mr. Blaine to Mr. Palmer, No. 3, May 20, 1889, id. 388; Mr. Foster to Mr. Snowden, No. 53, Dec. 20, 1892, id. 412; same to same, No. 95, Feb. 2, 1893, id. 416; Mr. Gresham to Mr. Taylor, No. 16, July 14, 1893, id. 419; same to same, telegram, Dec. 21, 1893, id. 427; Mr. Taylor to Mr. Gresham, No. 94, Dec. 30, 1893, id. 429, 430, 431; Mr. Gresham to Mr. Taylor, No. 95, Feb. 14, 1894, id. 434; Memorandum of Señor Moret, Feb. 26, 1894, id. 439; Mr. Gresham to Mr. Taylor, tel., March 20, 1894, id. 443; Mr. Gresham to Mr. Taylor, No. 134, June 5, 1894, id. 446; joint res. of March 2, 1895, For. Rel. 1895, II. 1163; Mr. Uhl, Acting Sec. of State, to Mr. Taylor, No. 341, June 6, 1895, id. 1162; Mr. Olney to Mr. Taylor, tel., June 11, 1895, id. 1163; Mr. Olney to Señor Dupuy de Lôme, No. 11, June 24, 1895, id. 1167; agreement of Aug. 10, 1895, id. 1171; acknowledgment of settlement of claim, Sept. 14, 1895, id. 1176.

"I beg to acknowledge yours of the 5th instant, relative to the case of Frazer es. Dexter, pending in the Supreme Court District of Columbia.

"The claim has been loosely spoken of in diplomatic correspondence and otherwise, as the claim of Antonio Maximo Mora against the Government of Spain. Nevertheless, that description of the claim is to be regarded rather as identifying it than as showing its true legal character. It was in fact the claim of the United States against Spain, prosecuted as such and paid as such. The money was paid by draft in favor of the Secretary of State of the United States, and the proceeds are now deposited in the subtreasury of the United States to the order of the Secretary. During the course of

the negotiations, which ended in the final settlement of the claim, I had frequent consultations with the parties in interest. I consulted with them not because I was obliged to, but because I desired that any settlement made should be satisfactory to them. In several letters to me on the subject, the counsel of Mora and his assignees admitted more than once that, while they appreciated the privilege of being conferred with as to the terms of settlement, all the right and all the discretion in the matter were vested in the Government of the United States. The only action of Congress on the subject, that I am aware of, is the joint resolution of March 2, 1895, 28 Stats. at Large, 975."

Mr. Olney, Sec. of State, to the Attorney-General, Oct. 7, 1895, 205 MS.
Dom. Let. 212.

XV. NATIONAL NEGLECT OR SALE OF CLAIM.

§ 1056.

"Should the Government of the United States, either by its neglect in pressing a claim against a foreign government or by extinguishing it as an equivalent for concessions from such government, impair the claimant's rights, it is bound to duly compensate such claimant."

Wharton, Int. Law Digest, § 220, II. 566.

The controversies between the United States and France, arising from the wars growing out of the French revolution, have elsewhere been narrated. (Supra, § 821.) These controversies, as has been seen, gave rise to many claims against France on account of acts of spoliation committed against American citizens and their commerce. By the act of July 7, 1798, Congress, on the ground of wrongful acts by France, declared that the Government of the United States was exonerated from the stipulations of the treaties between the two countries, which were not to be regarded in the future as legally obligatory on the Government or citizens of the United States. The treaties thus declared to be at an end included the treaty of alliance and the treaty of commerce of 1778, to which the controversies between the two countries had chiefly related. In 1800, when the two governments came to negotiate for the restoration of amicable relations, France declined to admit that the treaties of 1778 could be considered as having been terminated by the act of the United States alone. France, said the plenipotentiaries of that government, would either recognize the treaties as being in full force, and in that case would agree to make indemnity for any infractions of them, or would recognize the condition of things which had existed from 1798 to 1800 as constituting a state of war, and in that case would make a treaty of peace and decline to grant indemnities, since the rights of