it without giving to the whole an absurd meaning, and as repugnant to common sense as to the most simple rules of grammar and art of writing; nor can it be said without discredit to the contracting parties, that they should avail themselves of an expression vague and equivocal, and use it exactly in the most important article, and upon one of the most interesting objects of the treaty; and that, with a view to find such vague expressions, they should select the word "retrocede," having at hand the word "cede," which, followed by other explicit clauses that might have been inserted, would have explained with facility and precision the return of Louisiana to its former owner, and the cession of West Florida, if such had been the intention. But it was no doubt the intention of the parties that the expression "retrocede," which has given the name to the treaty, and serves to express the principal design of the third article, should be marked with all the exactness and grammatical rigor possible; nor is it susceptible of doubt that the expression retrocede," in its obvious and grammatical sense, means to cede to one what it has received from it. Your Excellencies ought not, therefore, to think it extraordinary that I have believed, and do believe, that this expression is of the greatest consequence to the decision of the present question.

The force it carries with it makes us see at once with what exactness and simplicity the other parts of the article quadrate with it. If we set out from the beginning to give to the expression "retrocede" a meaning which it has not, it will not be extraordinary if we find some embarrassment and difficulty to decipher the said article. It says, in the first place, that it retrocedes Louisiana "avec la même étendue qu'elle a entre les mains d'Espagne;" but this expression, in the mode in which your Excellencies contrive it, appears absurd and contradictory. It is indubitable that Spain possesses West Florida as Florida, not as Louisiana, and this act, founded on an authenticity the most notorious, is marked, in the Treaty of 1783 and 1795, in a manner which cannot be contradicted or admit of a doubt; consequently, Louisiana, "avec la même étendue" which it had in the hands of Spain, is without West Florida, and to suppose that the cession could have comprehended this province, it was impossible to suppose it could be Louisiana, with the same extent, without incurring a palpable contradiction. Your Excellencies know the force of this difficulty and wish to explain the first clause by the second, which says, "et qu'elle avoit lorsque la France la possédoit." But I ask, has the second clause a fixed epoch, which determines the time when France had it? Certainly not. Then the want of this fixed epoch alludes to the last time that France had it, that is, when she delivered it to Spain; an expression the more convenient, as in any other manner it will be contradictory with the first, which says, "avec la même étendue qu'elle a entre les mains d'Espagne." if it was with more, it could not be with It is more natural that a clause which has a fixed epoch, as the first has, should serve to clear up the sense of the second, which has no

the same.

epoch, or extent fixed, than that we should give so much force to the doubtful epoch of the second clause, as to make it destroy the clear and marked meaning of the expression "retrocede" in the first clause avec la même étendue." Admitting the explanation of your Excellencies, the second clause is in contradiction with the first; admitting mine, both explain and combine simply, and prove that Spain delivered Louisiana to France, with the same extent that it had in her hands in 1800; and as France possessed it when she delivered it to Spain, but as neither in the one or other epoch West Florida made a part of Louisiana, the two clauses perfectly unite with each other, and both with the principal action "retrocede," which gov erns all the clauses of the article.

The third clause, which your Excellencies sup pose can also be brought as a proof that West Florida is included in the retrocession of Louisi ana made to France, is, to my understanding, a new proof of the contrary; it says: "et telle qu'elle dût étre après les traités passés entre l'Es pagne et d'autres Puissances." It is impossible to make anything clearer than that the treaty did not alter anything in the treaties which Spain had made with other Powers on this subject. There were two, one of 1795 with the United States, and one with England in 1783, by which Spain had acquired the territories to the eastward of the Mississippi, not as Louisiana, but as Florida, and, consequently, to be, as it ought to be, after this treaty, was with the exclusion of a ter ritory possessed by England as West Florida, conquered by Spain as West Florida, and acquired irrevocably as West Florida by the treaty 1783, and received, in each of these solemn acts, a new qualification of its total separation from Louisiana, and of the limits which separate them. Your Excellencies contend that the treaty of 1783 was a new incorporation of the said terri tory to Louisiana; but I do not see in the said treaty of 1783 anything but a confirmation of the right of conquest which His Majesty's arms had made of an English province called West Florida; the cession which France had made to England of the said territory had been an alienation, perfect, irrevocable, and perpetual. The territory became an English possession, and afterwards a Spanish one. That Spain, on the other side, and by other titles, should have acquired Louisiana, and that the two territories should return to be united in the one hand, in which they were before united, does not import nor could it import, a legal incorporation of them, because their titles and times of acquisition were different. Spain had no Louisiana but what she received from France, and it was undoubtedly Florida she received from England.

It is not conceivable or imaginable how the cession of a province or territory could occur without mentioning or naming it, or that it could be made only by designating it with a name. which, by the consent and notice of all the pa tions concerned, and the most authentic public acts, it had lost many years ago. This territory was called West Florida, and it was so called au

thentically, and by this name the contracting parties would have called it, had they imagined it was comprehended in the cession; as it is an acknowledged principle that the territories they change or cede ought to be designated by the names they then officially have; nor can it be said that, by its entrance into the possession of Spain, it returned to its ancient state and name, because all the public acts since its entrance into the possession of Spain, from the treaty of 1783, inclusive, have confirmed its separation from Louisiana, and its difference of name springing from the difference of its title of acquisition; after a separation so qualified, it was only an express and positive stipulation that could reunite it to Louisiana in its retrocession. Your Excellencies have attempted in your note to persuade me that the treaty of 1783 reunited West Florida to Louisiana anew, attributing it to the motive which made France cede to England, in 1763. the territory to the east of the Mississippi, and this motive, your Excellencies say, was to favor Spain. But, on my part, I cannot agree to this. France ceded this territory because she felt it her interest to do so, or was obliged to do so; but this is of no importance, for, be the motive what may, the cession cannot be considered less than an effectual, irrevocable, and perpetual alienation, with all the consequences which were to make West Florida an English possession. Being so, Spain could conquer, acquire, and receive it from England, having this original and just title to it; and this alone is all she requires to make it her property in every sense of the word, and as independent of Louisiana as it was in the hands of England.

it

It results from this, that the contracting parties had no intention to include West Florida in the treaty of St. Ildefonso; this is the more confirmed, if we recollect that France could not do it, nor could she stipulate for the acquisition of any territory to the eastward of the Mississippi, without the consent of the United States, as she had obliged herself to this by an express stipulation contained in the sixth article of her treaty with the United States; which article says: "Le Roi très Chrétien renonce à posséder jamois les Bermudes, ni aucune des parties du continent de l'Amérique Septentrionale, qui, avant le traité, de Paris de 1763, ou en vertu de ce traité, ont été, réconnues appartenir à la couronne de la Grand Bretagne." It is to be seen from this, that France could not (if the United States did not consent, when she had bound herself by this treaty) acquire West Florida, which, by the treaty of 1763, belonged to the Crown of Great Britain. If in the treaty of St. Ildefonso, France had intended or proposed to acquire West Florida, it is clear she could not do so without the consent of the United States, and that this consent ought to preede all other stipulations; on the contrary, if France should have infringed the rights of the United States, which can in no manner be supposed, it would not be decorous in the United States to give to the treaty of St. Ildefonso an nterpretation, from which it must result, as a

necessary consequence, that France had violated their treaty with the United States, and that they founded their right to West Florida on this violation.

The opinion of the astronomer and geographer Ellicot, which is so exactly conformable to the ideas I have just stated, and whose concluding expressions I transmitted you in my letter of the 24th, is of very great weight and consideration on this subject. I do not suppose it, as your Excellencies do, a question for a lawyer or civilian; it is, in its whole extent, entirely geographical; it only treats of the question, whether the territory to the east of the Mississippi, at the time of the retrocession, was Louisiana or West Florida. What person more proper to give an opinion on this subject than the one who has merited to be employed by the United States, in fixing the limits of the very territory he treats about? It is dishonoring his talents to say that he had not with him the maps, both ancient and modern, of the said territory, and the most authentic documents respecting it; and using, as he does, the expressions I copied for your Excellencies in my letter of the 24th ultimo, after he knew of the acquisition of Louisiana by the United States, leaves no doubt that his love of truth and justice forced from him this sincere confession of the incontestable right of Spain to the territory of West Florida.

But all further reflections are unnecessary upon this subject, when it is considered that the Treaty of St. Ildefonso was a contract between France and Spain, and that, of consequence, on whatever point of it (however it might appear doubtful) on which France and Spain are agreed in their understanding and explanation of it, this uniformity of understanding has as much force as the most explicit and determinate stipulation, because no one can know as well as the contracting parties what the one was to cede, and the other to receive. The United States, who have succeeded to the right of France, can have no other right or claim than that which France supposed she had. France has been, and is now, persuaded that, by the treaty of retrocession, she neither did nor had any intention to acquire West Florida. The prefect Laussat, charged to carry the treaty into effect, instructed perfectly in its contents, and being depositary of the intention of his Government, was satisfied of the manner in which it was carried into execution, without being put into possession of West Florida; which act leaves no doubt of the manner in which France understood the Treaty of St. Ildefonso should be executed. But if your Excellencies should still consider this as insufficient proof, will you permit me to send you a copy of a declaration the most positive which can be imagined, in which the Government of France declares that it never thought of acquiring territory to the eastward of the Mississippi by the Treaty of St. Ildefonso, much less has ceded it, or could cede it to the United States. The Minister of Foreign Relations of France has written upon this subject, on the 30th August last, to His Majesty's Ambassador in Paris, and

in his letter are the following remarkable expressions: "Les limites orientales de la Louisiane sont indiquées par le cours du Mississippi, et ensuite par la rivière d'Iberville, le lac Pontchartrain, et le las Maurepas. C'est à cette ligne de demarcation que se termina le territoire cédé par l'Espagne à la France, en vertu traité de 30 Ventose, an 9. La France n'auroit rien démandé à l'Espagne au delà de cette limite; et comme elle n'a fait que substituer les Etats Unis aux droits qu'elle avoit acquis, ils ne peuvent pas exiger de l'Espagne une cession de territoire plus étendue, à moins que cette concession ne soit négociée et stipulee entr'eux et l'Espagne par quelque convention ul

térieure."

These expressions are so determinate and clear, as not to permit me to make any further reflections on them, persuaded that the simply reading them is sufficient for the conviction, that, as Spain did not think of ceding, nor France of acquiring, West Florida by the Treaty of St. Ildefonso, it is clear that the United States, who have succeeded to the right of France, could not acquire that which she supposed did not belong to her, and which she has declared she did not acquire, nor think of acquiring. This point appears to me so little susceptible of doubt after what I have said, and had the honor to say to your Excellencies in my note of the 24th ult., to whose contents I again refer you, that I am confident the justice and well established good faith of the United States will acknowledge that they cannot found any right to West Florida from the Treaty of St.

Ildefonso.

In concluding this letter, I cannot but declare my satisfaction to your Excellencies, that I see, by yours of the 8th, you are persuaded of my unalterable sentiments of respect and consideration for the United States, and also of my constant esteem for and wish to please your Excellencies, which I now have the honor again to renew; praying God to guard your lives many years.

PEDRO CEVALLOS.

We beg your Excellency to accept the assurance of our profound consideration and respect. CHARLES PINCKNEY. JAMES MONROE.

Messrs. Pinckney and Monroe to Mr. Cevallos. ARANJUEZ, March 30, 1805. The undersigned, Ministers Plenipotentiary and Envoys Extraordinary of the United States of America, have the honor to inform His Excellency Don Pedro Cevallos, that the length of time since their last note to his Excellency, to which no answer has been given, induces them to suspect that his silence is intended as an inti mnation of his desire that the negotiation should cease. They are sorry to add that the spirit with which the friendly advances and overtures of their Government have been received, would leave no doubt in their minds on this point, if his Excellency had not given them reason to expect, by his note of the 4th instant, some propositions, on his part, for the fair and equitable adjustment of the differences subsisting between their Govern ments. Having completely fulfilled the orders of the President, in proving, by their communications, and by the time they have attended his Excellency's propositions, the justice and moderation of his views, as of his friendly disposition and high respect for His Catholic Majesty, it remains that they should not be unmindful of what they owe to the Government and country, which they have the honor to represent. It neither comports with the object of the present mission, nor its du ties, to continue the negotiation longer than it furnishes a well founded expectation that the just and friendly policy which produced it, on the part of the United States, is cherished with the same views by His Catholic Majesty. Under such circumstances, the undersigned consider it tion whether it is his desire to terminate the netheir duty to request of his Excellency informa gotiation on the point it now rests. In case it is, they think proper, in expressing their regret at the result, to add, that they shall not hesitate promptly

Pedro Cevallos.

ARANJUEZ, March 16, 1805. SIR: We had the honor to receive yesterday your esteemed note of the 14th, and are sorry to find that we still continue so distant in our opinions upon the subject of it.

In our last, we gave your Excellency so fully the view which our Government entertains of the right of the United States to West Florida, and are still so firmly persuaded of their undoubted right to the same, that we think it unnecessary to remark further on that point.

All the questions in controversy between us having been discussed at length, and having been favored with your Excellency's opinion on each of them, except the western limits of Louisiana, we now take the liberty to request you to furnish us with the same, in answer to our communication on that subject.

lency's desire to continue the negotiation, they have to request that he will be so obliging as to give them the sentiments of His Majesty's Gov ernment respecting the western limits of Louisiana, and that he will also accompany it with such propositions as he may think proper to make for the adjustment of the very important and interesting concerns between the two nations. The undersigned have the honor to offer to. &c. CHARLES PINCKNEY. JAMES MONROE.

Mr. Cevallos to Messrs. Pinckney and Monroe. ARANJUEZ, March 31, 1805. GENTLEMEN: I have received your esteemed favor of yesterday, in which you were pleased to inform me that the delay of my answer to your favor of the 15th has made you suppose it was perhaps, the disposition of this Government to p