To James Madison from Fulwar Skipwith, 17 November 1806
From Fulwar Skipwith
Of. of Comml. Agcy of the U. S. Paris. 17. Novr. 1806.
Sir
Believing it useless for me, under present Circumstances, to renew my efforts with the Council of Prizes, to change the principles & rules of their proceedings, whereby the definitive trial of prize Causes is Still delayed, & depending, before that Tribunal; and, considering that the Minister of the U. S. only is authorized to call the attention of the F. Government itself to this Subject, I do no more, at this time, than to Commit under Cover hereof Copies of the Statement1 & letters furnished me in relation thereto, by Mr. Delagrange,2 the lawyer employed by me in defending the greater portion of Said causes, together with certain written observations communicated to me by Mr. Warden, as coming from Genl. Armstrong,3 and my reply.4 As the General no longer appears disposed to make the advance of money requisite to enable Mr. Delagrange to proceed in the Accomplishment of the Business of prize causes, tho’ formerly recommended & approved by him, under the promise of continuing the necessary advances, I cannot but express my hope of the President Seeing fit to cause & direct such an appropriation to be made as Soon as possible.
Some of the prize cases have been forwarded to me by your Department. Neither with these, nor with those sent me by the parties themselves, have any funds been provided. The rules of the Council of Prizes, to say nothing of the utility otherwise of the measure, prescribe the accessity of employing a lawyer; Mr. Delagrange is a Suitable lawyer, & moderate in his demands; the judiciary fees alone will fall little Short of the Sum already advanced by Genl. Armstrong—and to Save our Government from finding itself ultimately in advance, it is my intention to make a repartition of the costs & charges, to be Supported by such of the parties as Shall Succeed in obtaining the restitution of their property.
Besides the 19 Cases in charge of Mr. Delagrange there are three others, those of the Hannah, Lyon, & the Nancy, in the hands of Mr. Derché, another lawyer at the Council of Prizes.
In my reply, here also forwarded, to the observations before spoken of from Genl. Armstrong, it is with certainty of the fact that I notice his partiality in the case of Denton & Hall in procuring an order from the French Treasury, & delivering to Mr. Omealy, the Representative of Mr. Hall only his bills, whilst in the case of Denton & Hall & Nathan freres (or rather of the Transferee of this last claim, Timothy Wellman)5 I endeavor, but in vain, tho’ no Attatchment exists at the French Treasury to prevail on him to refer the payment to the Treasury of the U. S. This Claim, of a Considerable amount, may if Something Should not be done by Genl. Armstrong be forever Kept from the rightful owners. With great respect I have the honor to remain, Sir, your Mo. ob. Servt.
Fulwar Skipwith
RC and enclosures (DNA: RG 59, CD, Paris, vol. 2); FC (ibid., vol. 3). Docketed by Wagner. Appended to the RC is a list of enclosures: “no. 1. Statement of prize causes depending at the council of Prizes. / no. 2. Mr. Delagranges letter relating thereto / no. 5. Genl. Armstrong’s observations & refusal to furnish farther funds. / no. 6. Fr. Skipwith’s letter to Genl. Armstrong in reply.” For enclosures, see nn. 1–4.
1. Enclosure not found.
2. The enclosure is a copy of Joseph de La Grange to [John Armstrong], 9 Jan. 1806, certified by Skipwith to be a true copy of the original in his possession (3 pp.). La Grange enclosed a copy of the statement relating the status of sixteen prize cases and anticipating a favorable outcome for all of them. La Grange reported that three other cases—those of the Rover, the Thereza, and the Keon—had “been ⟨su⟩bmitted to the Department they respectively belonged.” He furnished his charges of 5,475 francs for his services in all nineteen cases. La Grange also reported that he had translated all of the documents but had been informed that they were not considered legal translations and that he needed to submit them to a sworn interpreter for certification; he did not imagine that “considerable” additional charges would result. He offered to send separate statements for each case after calculating all of the charges.
3. The enclosure is a copy of David Bailie Warden to Skipwith, 6 Nov. 1806, certified by Skipwith to be a true copy of the original in his possession (2 pp.). Warden wrote to Skipwith on behalf of Armstrong, initially referring to Armstrong in the third person. Warden informed Skipwith that Armstrong did not recall a mistake in drawing bills for Margaret D. Schutt, as Skipwith had mentioned in previous correspondence. He conveyed Armstrong’s clarification of a legal point in the dispute among Christopher Denton, Edward Hall, and the Nathan brothers (Donata and Joseph) in which Michael O’Mealy was authorized to receive payments on behalf of Hall (for this case, see ASP, Finance, 2:283–85). In subsequent paragraphs, Warden wrote for Armstrong in the first person. Armstrong questioned Skipwith’s request for an additional 3,000 francs, asking that Skipwith account for the money he had previously been advanced and provide information on the status of the cases disputed with that money since 5 December 1804.
4. The enclosure is a copy of Skipwith to Armstrong, 12 Nov. 1806 (3 pp.). Skipwith scolded Armstrong for having addressed Skipwith only through Armstrong’s secretary, Warden, and for failing to acknowledge or answer Skipwith’s earlier letters. He questioned whether the views in Warden’s 6 November letter were Armstrong’s or constituted a “wrong or right interpretation” by Warden, and Skipwith asked for more formal communications in the future. Skipwith clarified the concern regarding Schutt and disputed further the legal points of Denton, Hall, and the Nathan brothers. Skipwith enclosed certified copies of receipts from La Grange and Jean Joseph Derché that accounted for 2,700 of the 3,000 francs previously allotted for prize claims and reported having used some of the balance to pay for copies of judgments. He claimed that without additional funds, he could not meet the outstanding financial obligations or further pursue prize cases, providing assurances that he was drawing up a statement of all the charges “wrought in this business” since 5 December 1804. For Derché’s activities as a lawyer in France, see Michael P. Fitzsimmons, The Parisian Order of Barristers and the French Revolution (Cambridge, Mass., 1987), 189.
5. Timothy Wellman Jr. was attorney-in-fact for Denton; see ASP, Finance, 2:284–85.