arguments. And hence the honorable gentleman from Vermont, entertains doubt with regard to our title against Spain, whilst he feels entirely satisfied of it against France. Believing, as I do, that our title against both powers is indisputable, under the treaty of St. Ildefonso, between Spain and France, and the treaty between the French republic and the United States, I shall not inquire into the treachery, by which the king of Spain is alleged to have lost his crown; nor shall I stop to discuss the question involved in the overthrow of the Spanish monarchy, and how far the power of Spain ought to be considered as merged in that of France. I shall leave the honorable gentleman from Delaware to mourn over the fortunes of the fallen Charles. I have no commiseration for princes. My sympathies are reserved for the great mass of mankind, and I own that the people of Spain have them most sincerely.

I will adopt the course suggested by the nature of the subject, and pursued by other gentlemen, of examining into our title to the country lying between the Mississippi and the Rio Perdido, (which, to avoid circumlocution, I will call West Florida, although it is not the whole of it,) and the propriety of the recent measures taken for the occupation of that territory. Our title, then, depends, first, upon the limits of the province or colony of Louisiana, and, secondly, upon a just exposition of the treaties before mentioned. On this occasion it is only necessary to fix the eastern boundary. In order to ascertain this, it will be proper to take a cursory view of the settlement of the country, because the basis of European title to colonies in America, is prior discovery, or prior occupancy. In 1682, La Salle migrated from Canada, then owned by France, descended the Mississippi, and named the country which it waters, Louisiana. About 1698, D'Iberville discovered, by sea, the mouth of the Mississippi, established a colony at the Isle Dauphine, or Massacre, which lies at the mouth of the bay of Mobile, and one at the mouth of the river Mobile, and was appointed, by France, governor of the country. In the year 1717, the famous West India Company sent inhabitants to the Isle Dauphine, and found some of those who had been settled there under the auspices of D'Iberville. About the same period, Baloxi, near the Pascagoula, was settled. In 1719, the city of New Orleans was laid off, and the seat of government of Louisiana was established there; and in 1736 the French erected a fort on Tombigbee. These facts prove that France had the actual possession of the country as far east as the Mobile, at least. But the great instrument which ascertains, beyond all doubt, that the country in question is comprehended within the limits of Louisiana, is one of the most authentic and solemn character which the archives of a nation can furnish; I mean the patent granted in 1712, by Louis XIV, to Crozat. [Here Mr. C. read such parts of the patent as were applicable to

the subject.*] According to this document, in describing the province or colony of Louisiana, it is declared to be bounded by Carolina on the east, and Old and New Mexico on the west. Under this high record evidence, it might be insisted that we have a fair claim to East as well as West Florida, against France, at least, unless she has, by some convention, or other obligatory act, restricted the eastern liinit of the province. It has, indeed, been asserted, that, by a treaty between France and Spain, concluded in the year 1719, the Perdido was expressly stipulated to be the boundary between their respective provinces of Florida on the east, and Louisiana on the west; but as I have been unable to find any such treaty, I am induced to doubt its existence.

About the same period, to wit, towards the close of the seventeenth century, when France settled the Isle Dauphine, and the Mobile, Spain erected a fort at Pensacola. But Spain never pushed her actual settlements, or conquests, farther west than the bay of Pensacola, whilst those of the French were bounded on the east by the Mobile. Between those two points, a space of about thirteen or fourteen leagues, neither nation had the exclusive possession, The Rio Perdido, forming the bay of the same name,

*Extract from the Grant to Crozat, dated at

LOUIS, By the grace of God, &c.

'Fontainbleau, September 14, 1712.

The care we have always had to procure the welfare and advantage of our subjects, having induced us, &c. to seek for all possible opportunities of enlarging and extending the trade of our American colonies, we did, in the year 1683, give our orders to undertake a discovery of the countries and lands which are situated in the northern part of America, between New France and New Mexico; and the Sieur de la Salle, to whom we committed that enterprise, having had success, enough to confirm a belief that a communication might be settled from New France to the Gulf of Mexico, by means of large rivers, this obliged us, immediately after the peace of Ryswic, to give orders for establishing a colony there, and maintaining a garrison, which has kept and preserved the possession we had taken in the very year 1683, of the lands, coasts, and islands, which are situated in the Gulf of Mexico between Carolina on the east, and old and new Mexico on the west. But a new war having broke out in Europe shortly after, there was no possibility, till now, of reaping from that colony the advantages that might have been expected from thence, &c. And, whereas, upon the information we have received concerning the disposition and situation of the said countries, known at present by the name of the Province of Louisiana, we are of opinion, that there may be established therein considerable commerce, &c., we have resolved to grant the commerce of the country of Louisiana to the Sieur Anthony Crozat, &c. For these reasons, &c. we, by these presents signed by our hand, have appointed and do appoint the said Sieur Crozat, to carry on a trade in all the lands possessed by us, and bounded by New Mexico and by the lands of the English of Carolina, all the establishments, ports, havens, rivers, and principally the port and haven of the Isle Dauphine, heretofore called Massacre; the river of St. Louis, heretofore called Mississippi, from the edge of the sea as far as the Illinois, together with the river St. Philip, heretofore called the Missouri, and of St. Jerome, heretofore called Onabache, with all the countries, territories, and lakes within land, and the rivers which fall directly or indirectly into that part of the river St. Louis.

The Articles-1. Our pleasure is, that all the aforesaid lands, countries. streams, rivers, and islands be, and remain comprised under the name of the government of Louisiana, which shall be dependent upon the general government of New France, to which it is subordinate; and further, that all the lands which we possess from the Illinois, be united, &c. to the general government of New France, and become part thereof, &c.'

discharges itself into the Gulf of Mexico, between the Mobile and Pensacola, and, being a natural and the most notorious object between them, presented itself as a suitable boundary between the possessions of the two nations. It accordingly appears very early to have been adopted as the boundary, by tacit if not expressed consent. The ancient charts and historians, therefore, of the country, so represent it. Dupratz, one of the most accurate historians of the time, in point of fact and detail, whose work was published as early as 1758, describes the coast as being bounded on the east by the Rio Perdido. In truth, sir, no European nation whatever, except France, ever occupied any portion of West Florida, prior to her cession of it to England, in 1762. The gentlemen on the other side do not, indeed, strongly controvert, if they do not expressly admit, that Louisiana, as heid by the French anterior to her cessions of it in 1762, extended to the Perdido. The only observation made by the gentleman from Delaware to the contrary, to wit, that the island of New Orleans, being particularly mentioned, could not, for that reason, constitute a part of Louisiana, is susceptible of a very satisfactory answer. That island was excepted out of the grant to England, and was the only part of the province east of the river that was so excepted. It formed in itself one of the most prominent and important. objects of the cession to Spain originally, and was transferred to her with the portion of the province west of the Mississippi. It might with equal propriety be urged that St. Augustine is not in East Florida, because St. Augustine is expressly mentioned by Spain in her cession of that province to England. From this view of the subject, I think it results that the province of Louisiana comprised West Florida, previous to the year 1762.

What was done with it at this epoch? By a secret convention of the third of November, of that year, France ceded the country lying west of the Mississippi, and the island of New Orleans, to Spain; and by a contemporaneous act, the articles preliminary to the definitive treaty of 1763, she transferred West Florida to England. Thus, at the same instant of time, she alienated the whole province. Posterior to this grant, Great Britain, having also acquired from Spain her possessions east of the Mississippi, erected the country into two provinces, East and West Florida. In this state of things it continued until the peace of 1783, when Great Britain, in consequence of the events of the war, surrendered the country to Spain, who, for the first time, came into actual possession of West Florida. Well, sir, how does she dispose of it? She reannexes it to the residue of Louisiana-extends the jurisdiction of that government to it, and subjects the governors, or commandants, of the districts of Baton Rouge, Feliciana, Mobile, and Pensacola, to the authority of the governor of Louisiana, residing at New Orleans; while the governor of East Florida iz

placed wholly without his control, and is made amenable directly to the governor of the Havannah. Indeed, sir, I have been credibly informed, that all the concessions, or grants of land, made in West Florida, under the authority of Spain, run in the name of the government of Louisiana. You cannot have forgotten that, about the period when we took possession of New Orleans, under the treaty of cession from France, the whole country resounded with the nefarious speculations, which were alleged to be making in that city with the connivance, if not actual participation, of the Spanish authorities, by the procurement of surreptitious grants of land, particularly in the district of Feliciana. West Florida, then, not only as France had held it, but as it was in the hands of Spain, made a part of the province of Louisiana; as much so as the jurisdiction or district of Baton Rouge constituted a part of West Florida.

What, then, is the true construction of the treaties of St. Ildefonso, and of April, 1803, from whence our title is derived? If an ambiguity exist in a grant, the interpretation most favorable to the grantee is preferred. It was the duty of the grantor to have expressed himself in plain and intelligible terms. This is the doctrine, not of Coke only, (whose dicta I admit have nothing to do with the question,) but of the code of universal law. The doctrine is entitled to augmented force, when a clause only of the instrument is exhibited, in which clause the ambiguity lurks, and the residue of the instrument is kept back by the grantor. The entire convention of 1762, by which France transferred Louisiana to Spain, is concealed, and the whole of the treaty of St. Ildefonso, except a solitary clause. We are thus deprived of the aid which a full view of both of those instruments would afford. But we have no occasion to resort to any rules of construction, however reasonable in themselves, to establish our title. A competent knowledge of the facts connected with the case, and a candid appeal to the treaties, are alone sufficient to manifest our right. The negotiators of the treaty of 1803, having signed, with the same ceremony, two copies, one in English and the other in the French language, it has been contended, that in the English version the term 'cede' has been erroneously used instead of 'retrocede,' which is the expression in the French copy. And it is argued, that we are bound by the phraseology of the French copy, because it is declared that the treaty was agreed to in that language. It would not be very unfair to inquire, if this is not like the common case in private life, where individuals enter into a contract of which each party retains a copy, duly executed. In such case, neither has the preference. We might as well say to France, we will cling by the English copy, as she could insist upon an adherence to the French copy; and if she urged ignorance on the part of Mr. Marbois, her negotiator, of our language, we might with equal propriety plead ignorance, on the

part of our negotiators, of her language. As this, however, is a disputable point, I do not avail myself of it; gentlemen shall have the full benefit of the expressions in the French copy. According to this, then, in reciting the treaty of St. Ildefonso, it is declared by Spain, in 1800, that she retrocedes to France, the colony or province of Louisiana, with the same extent which it then had in the hands of Spain, and which it had when France possessed it, and such as it should be after the treaties subsequently entered into between Spain and other states. This latter member of the description has been sufficiently explained by my colleague.

It is said, that since France, in 1762, ceded to Spain only Louisiana west of the Mississippi, and the Island of New Orleans, the retrocession comprehended no more - that the retrocession ex vi termini was commensurate with and limited by the direct cession from France to Spain. If this were true, then the description, such as Spain held it, that is, in 1800, comprising West Florida, and such as France possessed it, that is, in 1762, prior to the several cessions, comprising also West Florida, would be totally inoperative. But the definition of the term retrocession contended for by the other side is denied. It does not exclude the instrumentality of a third party. It means restoration, or reconveyance of a thing originally ceded, and so the gentleman from Delaware acknowledged. I admit that the thing restored, must have come to the restoring party from the party to whom it is retroceded; whether directly or indirectly is wholly immaterial. In its passage, it may have come through a dozen hands. The retroceding party must claim under and in virtue of the right originally possessed by the party to whom the retrocession takes place. Allow me to put a case. You own an estate called Louisiana. You convey one moiety of it to the gentleman from Delaware, and the other to me; he conveys his moiety to me, and I thus become entitled to the whole. By a suitable instrument, I reconvey, or retrocede the estate called Louisiana to you as I now hold it, and as you held it; what passes to you? The whole estate or my moiety only? Let me indulge another supposition-that the gentleman from Delaware, after he received from you his moiety, bestowed a new denomination upon it and called it West Florida; would that circumstance vary the operation of my act of retrocession to you? The case supposed, is, in truth, the real one between the United States and Spain. France, in 1762, transfers Louisiana, west of the Mississippi, to Spain, and at the same time conveys the eastern portion of it, exclusive of New Orleans, to Great Britain. Twentyone years after, that is, in 1783, Great Britain cedes her part to Spain, who thus becomes possessed of the entire province; one portion by direct cession from France, and the residue by indirect cession. Spain, then, held the whole of Louisiana under France, and in virtue of the title of France. The whole moved or passed