together with East Florida, had long belonged to Spain) and, in the event, took military possession of the districts, which they claimed there.*

cussed.

This last is the subject of dispute now to be dis

As we presume, that our administration has taken very questionable ground on this occasion, we shall endeavour to prove the justness of this opinion in what follows; ranging our materials under several heads, from which we shall draw the necessary conclusions.

I. An account of the form of the transfer of Louisiana and New-Orleans to the United States, as made by BONAPARTE in

1803.

In the above named treaty of purchase dated April 30th, 1803, we read thus: "Art. 1st. Whereas by the third article of the treaty concluded at St. Ildefonso on the 9th Vindemiaire, an. IX [or Oct. 1, 1800] between the first consul of the French republick and his Catholick Majesty [the King of Spain;] it was agreed as follows: His Catholick Majesty promises and engages on his hart to cede to the French Republick, six months after the full and entire execution of the conditions and stipulations relative to his Royal Highness the Duke of Parma, the COLONY OR PROVINCE OF LOUISIANA, with the extent that it has in the hands of Spain, and that it had when France possessed it, and such as it should bet after the treaties SUBSEQUENTLY entered into between Spain and OTHER states:' and whereas in pursuance of the [above]

* If the claim of our administration goes eastward as far as the river Perdido, (which lies between Mobile and Pensacola) this is above 240 English miles in an air line from the bank of the Mississippi, and the average depth of this tract from north to south is above 50 English miles. See Mr. Ellicott's map, E. or No. 5, as given in his Journal, of which more will be said hereafter.

†The Duke of Parma was one of the King of Spain's family and was made king of Etruria (or Tuscany.) This is the pretended Italian grant just spoken of. How far Bonaparte fulfilled the promise to his widow, (who was daughter to the King of Spain) except as to her mere title, is well known, for she was not only driven from her nominal kingdom but imprisoned, while Bonaparte obtained the value of $15,000,000 as the equivalent of this pretended grant.

Say rather (pursuant to the original French, doit etre) such as it ought to be; that is, such as it became after the treaties, which occurred while it belonged to Spain. N. B. The treaty states, that the articles were agreed to in the French language.

treaty (and particularly of the third article) the French republíck has an incontestible title to the domain and to the possession of the said territory; the first consul of the French republick (desiring to give to the United States a strong proof of his friendship) doth hereby cede to the said United States in the NAME of the French republick 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 REPUBLICK in virtue of the above mentioned treaty concluded with his Catholick Majesty. Art. 2d. In the cession made by the preceding article are included the adjacent islands belonging to Louisiana, &c. Art. 3d. *** The commissary of the French republick shall remit all military posts of New-Orleans and other parts of the ceded territory to the commissary or commissaries named by the President of the United States."

This is the origin and nature of the title of the United States to Louisiana and New-Orleans.

But it is to be observed, first, that New-Orleans is no where referred to in the above treaty or in the two documents which follow it, unless as an "island" belonging to Louisiana, or as a mere part of Louisiana.

Secondly, The cession at large here referred to was limited by three conditions.. 1st. The whole territory was ceded to us exactly as Spain then held it. 2d. It was ceded to us exactly as France had held it under its monarchy; but subject to the effect of Spanish treaties made aftor Spain had come into possession. 3d. It was ceded to us exactly in the form in which the French republick had recently acquired it from Spain (namely in 1800.) The remark is obvious, that these conditions are all to be interpreted consistently with each other.

These latter observations will be better understood, when we discover the whole of the circumstances, which occasioned limits to be put to the old extent of Louisiana to the east, and when we comment more at large on the above treaty. II. An account of the cession of the SPANISH claims to the Floridas made to England in 1762-3.

It is to be observed, that, if France formerly sought to extend the bounds of Louisiana towards Florida,* Spain also sought to push *Florida, as we shall find, at first, had not been divided into East and West Florida, and its dimensions, at that period, were far inferior to those of the two modern Floridas united.

*

agreed, that, for the future, the confines between the dominions of his Britannick majesty, and those of his most Christian majesty, [that is, the king of France] in that part of the world, shall be irrevocably fixed by a line drawn along the MIDDLE of the RIVER MISSISSIPPI from its source, as far as the river Iberville, and from thence by a line drawn along the middle of this river, [that is, the Iberville] and that of the lakes Maurepas and Pontchartrain to the sea. And to this purpose, the most Christian king cedes in full right, and GUARANTEES to his Britannick majesty, the river and port of Mobile and EVERY THING that he possesses, or ought to have possessedt on the LEFT‡ side of the river Mississippi; except the town of New-Orleans, and the island in which it is situated, which shall remain to France;|| Provided, that the navigation of the river Mississippi shall be equally free as well to the subjects of Great Britain as to those of France, in its WHOLE length and breadth, from its source to the sea, (and that part expressly, which is between the said island of New-Orleans and the RIGHT bank of the river) as well as the passage both in and out of its mouth. It is further stipulated that the vessels belonging to the subjects of either nation shall not be stopped, visited, or subject to the payment of any duty whatever."§

* The river Mississippi furnishing the waters of the Iberville, and the Iberville running through the lakes Maurepas and Pontchartrain to the sea, we are at liberty to conceive of the island of New-Orleans as formed by a fork of the Mississippi and the sea; the several rivers which run either into the Iberville or the above lakes, being then considered merely as tributary waters to the Mississippi. Hence, it becomes natural to treat the island of New-Orleans sometimes as an appendage, and sometimes as a part of Louisiana, which, in its more limited shape, had the Mississippi for its eastern boundary.

†The definitive treaty says, “ought to possess,” in the present tense.

If a man stands in a boat with his back toward the higher part of a river, and looks down it, the bank to his left is called the left bank, and the other, the right bank.

|| Thus New-Orleans was the only object excepted, to the east of the Mississippi.

§ For the preliminaries of the treaty between France, Spain and England, dated Nov. 3, 1762, see Debrett's Collection of Treaties, (preceded by Mr. Charles Jenkinson's Discourse) Vol. III. 166. For the definitive treaty which followed these premliminaries on Feb. 10th, 1763, see the Annual Register of the preceding year (1762, page 333,) or any Collection of Modern Treaties, as Debrett's, III. 177, or that of Chalmers, II. 229.

IV. An account of the proceedings of Great Britain as to the two Floridas.

The territory thus given up to England by SPAIN (as lying between the eastern bank of the Mississippi and the sea to the east and south ;) and at the same moment also by FRANCE (as extending from the middle both of the Mississippi and of the boundary waters of New-Orleans in an easterly direction indefinitely, but so as to reach the Mobile or Tombeeky ;) this territory, we say, was thrown by England into ONE GENERAL MASS, and was then (by a proclamation of the king England, dated October 7, 1763) divided into East Florida and West Florida.* The boundary of each part, however, is merely to be held as the boundary of a provincial government, and subject to internal changes. But, as regards foreign transactions, the northern boundaries proclaimed in 1763 were adhered to with respect to the United States in 1782, and with respect to Spain in 1783; as will immediately be stated. As to the southern boundary of the two Floridas, it reached like the northern from the Mississippi to the Atlantick.

It was at the close of the American war that Great Britain abandoned to Spain the territory which she had thus divided into East and West Florida. The definitive treaty with Spain in 1783 expresses the surrender thus: His Britannick Majesty likewise cedes and guarantees to his Catholick Majesty [that is, the king of Spain] East Florida as also West Florida.'

It is important to mention this cession, for as Louisiana and New Orleans join line and line to the Floridas to the west, without any intermediate territory, their boundaries in that quarter are one and the same, so that to name the boundary of the one is to indicate that of the other.

By the above cession to Spain, the concern of Great Britain with the Florida boundaries became terminated.

But we are now to add (and it is a matter interesting to the history of the United States) that, previous to this cession, Great Britain had agreed, that the boundaries of the two Floridas to the north should become the boundaries of the United States to the south. She had full right to fix on this line, the provisional articles of her peace with the United States having been signed on November 30, 1782, and also ratified before the signature of the above

*See note A. at the end.

B

preliminaries of peace with Spain in 1783.* Spain herself, also, as the proprietor of the Floridas, again accepted these boundaries in 1795, as will immediately be mentioned, and thus the transaction as to the boundaries was fully confirmed, as regards the United States.

V. An account of the joint and separate proceedings of Spain and the United States, as to the two Floridas, previously to 1800 and 1803.

In the treaty between ourselves and Spain dated 1795, noticed above (entitled a Treaty of friendship, limits, and havigation,) it was decided that the boundary between the United States and the two Floridas should be thus designated.' The line was to have its BEGINNING on the river MISSISSIPPI, in N. lat. 31°; thence to be drawn to the middle of the river Apalachicola (or Catahouche;) thence along the middle of that river to its junction with the Flint [river] thence directly to the head of St. Mary's river; and thence down the middle of that river to the Atlantick Ocean. These boundaries, as we have intimated, have been unanimously agreed upon by Great Britain, Spain, and the United States, as the common boundaries of the United States and of the Floridas, in the points where they touch each other, namely from the Mississippi to the Atlantick ocean.

The Spanish territory here in question was called by the first article of the above treaty of 1795, the Spanish colonies of East and West Florida' and by its 3d and 5th articles they were called "the Two Floridas," which names, therefore, are to be held as mutually received by Spain and the United States in the senses which they naturally bear.

These territories (as we have seen) had, moreover, passed into the hands of Spain, in 1783, by a British title; which title had the peculiar advantage of extinguishing the old French claims to every part of them. This convenience must have been the cause which induced the Spanish court to adopt the division and the

* See the provisional articles of peace between the United States and Great Britain in Gordon's History of the American Revolutionary War, vol. IV. 360. They are to be found also in some of the collections of the Laws of the United States.

See the treaty of 1795 in various collections of the Laws of the United States.