make a desperate attempt to keep these fine countries. you shall have full powers."-(Marbois, 274-'5 )

To-morrow

A letter of the 29th July, 1803, from the Secretary of State, acknowledging to Mr. Livingston the receipt of his communication informing the government of the United States of this unexpected acquisition, says: "The object of the most sanguine was limited to the establishment of the Mississippi as our boundary. It was not thought that more could be sought by the United States, either with a chance of success, or, perhaps, without being suspected of a greedy ambition, than the island of New Orleans and the two Floridas, it being little doubted that the latter was or would be comprehended in the cession from Spain to France. To the acquisition of New Orleans and the Floridas the provision was, therefore, accommodated. Nor was it to be supposed that, in case the French government should be willing to part with more than the territory on one side of the Mississippi, our arrangement with Spain for restoring to her the territory on the other side would not be preferred to a sale of it to the United States." After stating that no expectations of success in the objects of the French mission had been entertained, except from some such military necessity as had occurred, the Secretary adds: "It is just ground for mutual and general felicitation that it [the crisis relied on] has issued under your zealous exertions in the extensive acquisition beyond the Mississippi.

"With respect to the terms on which the acquisition was made, there can be no doubt that the bargain will be regarded as, on the whole, highly advantageous. The pecuniary stipulations would have been more satisfactory, if they had departed less from the plan prescribed; and particularly if the two millions of dollars in cash, intended to reduce the price or hasten the delivery of possession, had been so applied, and the assumed payments to American claimants placed on the footing mentioned in the instructions. The unexpected weight of the draught now to be made on the treasury will be sensibly felt by it, and may possibly be important in regard to other important objects.

"I can only add the wish of the President to learn from you the understanding which prevailed in the negotiations with respect to the boundaries of Louisiana; and more particularly the pretensions and proofs for carrying it to the river Perdido, or for including any lesser pårtion of West Florida."

To this question of Mr. Madison no reply seems to have been given; but the United States, from the date of the treaty, always persistently asserted that the cession of Louisiana carried with it the territory lying between the Mississippi and Perdido rivers, whilst Spain as persistently repelled this pretension, and the matter remained a subject of earnest and angry controversy between the two powers till their dispute was finally settled by the treaty of 1819, whereby Spain ceded the Floridas to the United States.

The titles to the lands now claimed by the memorialists lie within this disputed territory; and although their validity might, in the opinion of the committee, be conclusively established without reference to the merits of the controversy just mentioned, the committee feel it to be their duty to investigate and report on this element of the title

of the memorialists, as it is one which they earnestly urge in support of their pretensions.

The description of Louisiana, as ceded by France, is given in the treaty of 1803, in the first article, in these words:

"Whereas, by the article the third of the treaty concluded at St. Ildefonso the 1st of October, 1800, between the First Consul of the French republic and his Catholic Majesty, it was agreed as follows: 'His Catholic Majesty promises and engages, on his part, to cede to the French republic, six months after the full and entire execution of the conditions and stipulations herein relative to his royal highness the Duke of Parma, the colony or province of Louisiana, with the same extent that it now has in the hands of Spain and that it had when France possessed it, and such as it should be after the treaties subsequently entered into between Spain and other States;' and whereas, in pursuance of the treaty and particularly of the third article, the French republic has an incontestable title to the domain and to the possession of the said territory, the First Consul of the French republic, desiring to give to the United States a strong proof of his friendship, doth hereby cede to the United States, in the name of the French republic, forever and in full sovereignty, the said territory, with all its rights and appurtenances, as fully and in the same manner as they have been acquired by the French republic, in virtue of the above mentioned treaty concluded with his Catholic Majesty.".

It is obvious, from the very terms of this treaty, that the description of the boundaries was studiously omitted, and that France simply stipulated to convey whatever she had acquired from Spain. It becomes, then, quite interesting to ascertain, if possible, the reasons why so important an element of the treaty as a precise designation of the boundaries of the ceded territory was carefully excluded. Let us, for this purpose, compare the statements made by the diplomatists who negotiated the convention.

Mr. Livingston, in his despatches, frequently recurs to this subject. In his despatch of the 5th February, 1803, he says: "The Floridas not yet ceded (to France,) owing, I believe, to some difficulty about Parma. * * * Spain is, however, prepared to make the cession, and I presume it will be done."-(2 For. Rel., 532.)

On the 18th February, 1803: "I have proposed to them the relinquishment of New Orleans, and West Florida as far as the river Perdido. * * The essential fact is that the Floridas are not yet ceded"-i. e., by Spain to France.-(Page 533.)

On the 3d March, 1803: "The Floridas are still in the hands of Spain."-(Page 538.)

On the 11th March, 1803: "If, as I begin to believe, they (the French) do not get the Floridas, they will put the less value on New Orleans."

On the 11th April, 1803, "I endeavored to convince the government that the United States would avail themselves of the breach of the treaty to possess themselves of New Orleans and the Floridas; that Britain would never suffer Spain to grant the Floridas to France, even were she so disposed, but would immediately seize upon them as soon as the transfer was made; that, without the Floridas, Louisiana

would be indefensible * * * I have used every exertion with the Spanish ambassador and Lord Whitworth to prevent the transfer of the Floridas."-(Page 552.)

On the 13th April, 1803, in speaking of the negotiations with Mr. Marbois, whose character for integrity, he says, is established, after mentioning the sum spoken of for the purchase of Louisiana, he adds: "I asked him, in case of a purchase, whether they would stipulate that France would never possess the Floridas, and that she would aid us to procure them, and relinquish all right she might have to them? He told me that she would go thus far."-(Page 553.)

On the 12th May, 1803: "I am satisfied that, from this period, they had determined to let us have New Orleans, and the territory above the Arkansas, in exchange for certain commercial advantages; and that if they could have concluded with Spain, we should also have had West Florida."-(Page 558.)

On the 12th May, 1803, he writes in relation to the colonization of Louisiana, that, on his arrival in France, it was a favorite project with the First Consul; "nor would any of them hear of disposing of it by sale; yet so ignorant were they of the nature of their acquisition that they never once suspected THE FLORIDAS WERE NOT INCLUDED IN THEIR TREATY, till they were convinced of the contrary by the inquiries they set on foot in consequence of MY INFORMATION."-(Page 557.) Comment on these passages would be superfluous The evidence is irrefragable that the American minister had not the least idea that, in purchasing Louisiana, he was acquiring West Florida, within whose limits are situated the lands claimed by the memorialists.

The French diplomatist states, in his history, that the American negotiators at first insisted on a definition of boundaries, which they connected with the idea of a guarantee on the part of France; but there was some difficulty about the precise limit between Louisiana and Florida then pending with Spain, and Mr. Marbois said:

"The circumstances are too pressing to permit us to concert matters on this subject with the Court of Madrid. It would be too long before the discussion could be terminated, and perhaps that government would wish to consult the viceroy of Mexico. Is it not better for the United States to abide by a general stipulation, and, since these territories are still, at this day, for the most part, in the possession of the Indians, await further arrangements, or leave the matter for the treaty stipulations that the United States may make with them and Spain? In granting Canada to the English at the peace of 1763, we only extended the cession to the country that we possessed. It is, however, as a consequence of that treaty, that England has occupied territory to the west as far as the great Northern ocean.

"Whether," continues the historian, "the American plenipotentiaries had themselves desired what was proposed, or that their words afforded them a ray of light, they declared that they kept to the terms of the third article of the treaty of St. Ildefonso, which was inserted entire in the first article of the treaty of cession."

M. Marbois, who offered the draught, said several times: "The first article may, in time, give rise to difficulties; they are at this day insur

mountable; but if they do not stop you, I, at least, desire that your government should know that you have been warned of them."

The French negotiator, on rendering an account to the First Consul, pointed out to him the obscurity of this article and the inconvenience of so uncertain a stipulation. He replied, that if an obscurity did not already exist, it would, perhaps, be a good policy to put one there."(Marbois, pp. 283-'4-'5-'6.)

Having thus referred to the statements of the two parties who negotiated the treaty, let us next turn to the evidence of the construction which was originally put by our government on its own rights. under it On the 29th July, 1803, Mr. Madison's despatch to Mr. Pinckney, at Madrid, opens a fresh negotiation with Spain for the acquisition of the two Floridas, with these words: "You will have learned, doubtless, from Paris that a treaty has been signed there, by which New Orleans and the rest of Louisiana is conveyed to the United States. THE FLORIDAS ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THE TREATY, being, it appears, still held by Spain."-(2 For. Rel., p. 614.)

On the same day that is affixed as the date of the instructions to Mr. Pinckney, at Madrid, viz: July 29, 1803, more elaborate instructions were sent to Mr. Monroe, who had been directed to proceed to Spain and aid Mr. Pinckney in accomplishing the objects so earnestly sought by our government.

The following passages are extracted from these instructions.— (Am. State Papers, For. Rel., vol. 2, p. 626.)

"It is thought proper to observe to you that, although Louisiana may, in some respects, be more important than the Floridas, and has more than exhausted the funds allotted for the purchase of the latter, the acquisition of the Floridas is still to be pursued, especially as the crisis must be favorable to it." Again: "There is little ground for supposing that the maritime powers of Europe will complain of or be dissatisfied with a cession of the TWO FLORIDAS to the United States, more than with the late cession of Louisiana by Spain to France." The terms of these instructions are too plain to permit a doubt of the construction placed by our government on its acquisition. had acquired Louisiana, but neither of the two Floridas.

We

It appears that the first idea of a claim by our government to West Florida, as comprised in its purchase of Louisiana, originated with Mr. Livingston, whose letter of the 20th May, 1803, could not have reached Mr. Madison at the date when he issued his instructions of 29th July of the same year. This letter of Mr. Livingston, dated three weeks after the signature of the treaty, is sufficiently important to be transcribed in full.

"PARIS, May 20, 1803.

"DEAR SIR: The subject of this letter is too important to admit of delay, in case the treaties should have been any time in your hands; but as it has not yet been fully considered by Mr. Monroe, he thinks he cannot make it that of a joint letter until we have more fully discussed it, which we propose to do to-morrow or the next day. But as that will be too late for this conveyance, I throw out these hasty thoughts for your consideration. In the meantime you will consider

this rather as a private than a public letter, since it may or may not be made use of to promote such measures as, upon mature deliberation, the President shall think proper to adopt. I do not doubt, however, that Mr. Monroe will concur with me in opinion, after we have discussed the subject, and that we shall, by the next opportunity, write to you officially thereon.

"I informed you, long since, that on inquiring whether the Floridas were within the cession of Spain, I was told by Mr. Marbois that he was sure that Mobile was, but could not answer further. I believed his information incorrect, because I understood that Louisiana, as it then was, was made the object of the cession, and that since the possession of the Floridas by Britain they had changed their names. But the moment I saw the words of the treaty of Madrid, I had no doubt but it included all the country that France possessed by the name of Louisiana previous to their cession to Spain, except what had been conveyed by subsequent treaties. I accordingly insisted with Mr. Marbois, at the time we negotiated, that this would be considered. within our purchase. He neither assented nor denied, but said that all they received from Spain was intended to be conveyed to us. That my construction was right, was fairly to be inferred from the words of the treaties, and from a comment upon them contained in the Spanish minister's letter to Mr. Pinckney, in which he expressly says that France had recovered Louisiana, as it formerly belonged to her, saving the rights of other powers. This leaves no doubt upon the subject of the intention of the contracting parties. Now, it is well known that Louisiana, as possessed by France, was bounded by the river Perdido, and that Mobile was the metropolis. For the facts relative to this, I refer you to Raynal, and to his maps. I have, also, seen maps here which put the matter out of dispute.

"I called this morning upon Mr. Marbois for a further explanation on this subject, and to remind him of his having told me that Mobile made a part of the cession. He told me that he had no precise idea on the subject, but that he knew it to be an historical fact, and that on that only he had formed his opinion. I asked him what orders had been given to the prefect who was to take possession, or what orders had been given by Spain as to the boundaries in ceding it? He assured me that he did not know, but that he would make the inquiry and let me know. At four o'clock I called for Mr. Monroe, to take him to the minister of foreign affairs, but he was prevented from accompanying me. I asked the minister what were the east bounds of the territory ceded to us? He said he did not know; we must take it as they had received it. I asked him how Spain meant to give them possession? He said, according to the words of the treaty. But what did you mean to take? I do not know. Then you mean that we shall construe it in our.own way? I can give you no direction; you have made a noble bargain for yourselves, and I suppose you will make the most of it.

"Now, sir, the sum of this business is, to recommend to you in the strongest terms, after having obtained the possession that the French commissary will give you, to insist upon this as a part of your right, and to take possession at all events to the river Perdido. I pledge my