Abridgment of the Debates of Congress, from 1789 to 1856, Vol. 4 (of 16)

by United States. Congress

Friday, December 28.

Occupation of West Florida.

The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill respecting the territory west of the Perdido.

Mr. Horsey addressed the Senate as follows:

Mr. President: The bill under consideration contains two important provisions. The first in effect incorporates with the Territory of Orleans the province of West Florida east of the Mississippi, as far as the river Perdido; the second extends to that part of the province thus incorporated the laws now in force within the said Territory.

These provisions naturally involve two questions: first, whether the United States have a good title to that part of the province described in the bill; and secondly, whether it would be expedient for the Government of the United States to take possession of it by force.

Before I proceed to consider these questions, I beg leave, Mr. President, to advert to what may be considered a preliminary question. I refer to the authority of the President of the United States to issue his proclamation and the accompanying orders of the 27th of August last, directing the forcible occupation of that territory. I deem it material to consider this point, because, if the proclamation were unauthorized, then Congress are not committed by it, nor are they bound to give it their sanction.

If the President had any authority to issue this proclamation, that authority must have been derived either under the Constitution of the United States or under some act or acts of Congress. The President has no power which does not proceed from one or the other of these sources. The constitution has given to Congress the exclusive power of making laws and declaring war—to the President the power of executing the laws of the Union. The powers of the one are legislative, of the other executive. The question then would be, whether the President in issuing this proclamation has not transcended the limits of his powers.

Sir, what is the nature and import of this proclamation? In my humble conception both legislation and war. War—because it directs the occupation of this territory by a military force. The regular troops of the United States are ordered to march, and if they should not be found adequate to the object, the Governors of the Orleans and Mississippi Territories are directed to call out the militia of their respective territories, to co-operate with the regular forces. But we shall be told, sir, that the President, in issuing this proclamation, has taken the precaution to direct that in case any particular place, however small, should remain in possession of a Spanish force, the commanding officer is not to proceed to employ force against it, but to make immediate report thereof to the Secretary of State. Suppose while your commanding officer is making this report, the Spanish force sallies out and makes an attack upon your army, or suppose a Spanish army, with Governor Folch at their head, should march from East Florida with the view of repelling the invasion of this territory; what are Governor Claiborne and his army to do? Ground their arms and surrender themselves prisoners of war; or are they, sir, to drop their muskets and take to their heels? These are the only alternatives presented—they must either surrender, run, or fight. And who will doubt which of these alternatives the gallantry of an American army would impel them to choose! Sir, a conflict would be inevitable.

But while the President has been so affectedly cautious with respect to Spanish force, he has overlooked altogether the contingency of resistance on the part of the revolutionists. These patriots it would seem had called a convention and issued a declaration of independence, and now it appears have formed and established a regular Government, which is organized and in operation. If these proceedings are not all a sham, the territory in question is now in the possession of a people claiming to be sovereign and independent; and is it supposable that this people can behave so dastardly as to submit, without a struggle, to the incursion of a hostile army, whose avowed object is the conquest of the country and the subversion of its constitution and independence? And here permit me to remark, that the style and tenor of the letter from the Secretary of State of the 15th of November, 1810, to Governor Holmes, in answer to the letter of the President of the convention praying the recognition and protection of the United States, are not admirably calculated to give a welcome reception to the American Army. If then assistance should be offered on the part of the constitutionalists, what is your army to do? The orders contain no proviso in this particular, requiring that the fact should be reported to the Department of State; but their clear intent is, that force should be employed. Under such circumstances is it not to be expected that this measure of the Executive will result in war? Is it not to be expected, that either the Spaniards or the Conventionalists will attempt to repel this palpable infringement upon their rights and territory?

But, sir, this proclamation is not only war, but it is an act of legislation too. It annexes the territory in question to the Orleans Territory; it creates a Governor; it enacts laws, and appropriates money. It gives the Governor of the Orleans Territory all the authorities and functions over this particular territory which he possesses by virtue of his office as governor, and makes an appropriation of a sum of money, not exceeding twenty thousand dollars. This proclamation is substantially the bill under discussion, except that it goes much further. The first section of the bill only contains an annexation of the territory in question to the Orleans Territory—this the proclamation has already done. The second section only extends the laws of that territory to the particular territory in question—and this too the proclamation has already done. The only material difference in fact existing between the proclamation and this bill is, that the proclamation contains the further and important provision for raising the troops and the money necessary for carrying it into execution. And here, sir, I will take the liberty to remark that I do not consider this bill the only one intended on this subject. This is a mere entering wedge—when this is passed, Congress are permitted to pass another, providing the necessary military and pecuniary means to carry this act into execution; and, indeed, I should not be surprised, if, before the close of the session, a bill were introduced to take possession of East as well as West Florida.

If the President had no power under the constitution to issue this proclamation, I think it equally clear he had none under any existing laws of Congress. The act of the 31st of October, 1803, authorizing the President of the United States to take possession of and occupy the territory ceded by France to the United States, by the treaty concluded at Paris on the 30th of April, 1803, I apprehend, expired on the 1st day of October, 1804; to which period it was limited by the first section of the act for erecting Louisiana into two Territories, and providing for the temporary government thereof, passed the 20th day of March, 1804.

This section enacts, that "the act passed the 31st day of October, entitled 'An act to enable the President of the United States to take possession of the territories ceded by France to the United States, by the treaty concluded at Paris, on the 30th day of April, 1803; and for the temporary government thereof,' shall continue in force until the 1st day of October, 1804, any thing therein to the contrary notwithstanding; on which said 1st day of October, this act shall commence, and have full force, and shall continue in force for and during the term of one year, and to the end of the next session of Congress, which may happen thereafter." Let it be recollected that at the time this last-mentioned act passed, the President had fulfilled his powers, under the act of the 31st of October, 1803, so far as it respected the taking possession of Louisiana. Possession had been actually and formally delivered, and the stock created and transferred to the French Government, according to the stipulations of the treaty. Besides, the very nature and design of the act of the 26th March, independent of the express limitation, superseded the act of the 31st of October.

But it is said, there are acts of Congress which, though contemplating a present possession in a foreign authority, also contemplate an ultimate possession by the United States, under which the proclamation may be justified, even though the act of the 31st of October should have expired. The acts here referred to, I understand to be the act of the 24th of February, 1804, for laying and collecting duties within the territories ceded by France to the United States, the act above mentioned of the 26th of March, erecting Louisiana into two Territories, and the act of the 2d of March, 1805, authorizing the establishment of a Government in the Territory of Orleans, similar to the Government of the Mississippi Territory. The President himself admits, in his message at the opening of the session, that those laws contemplate a present possession in a foreign Power; but he further says, they contemplate an eventual possession by the United States. But, sir, let me ask what sort of possession? A possession by force? No, sir, not a single provision can be shown to justify such a construction. But a possession to be obtained by a friendly negotiation. I am warranted in this construction, not merely by the letter of those laws, by the lapse of time since their enactment, by the express official declaration of Mr. Madison himself, while Secretary of State. It is a notorious fact, that when the act of the 24th of February passed, the Marquis D'Yrujo, then the Minister of his Catholic Majesty in the United States, in a solemn form protested against that law; and that Mr. Madison, by a letter dated on the 19th of March, assured the Marquis that the provisions relating to Louisiana "would not be extended beyond the acknowledged limits of the United States, until it shall be rendered expedient by friendly elucidation and adjustments with His Catholic Majesty."

Upon the whole, sir, I have not been able to discover the shadow of authority, on the ground of which the President issued this proclamation. He has recited none, amidst all his recitals, and none appears to me but his own mere will and pleasure.

The act I therefore cannot view in any other light than an unwarrantable assumption of power and a violation of the constitution.

Considering then, sir, this act of the Executive as illegal and unauthorized, we are fully at liberty to enter into the discussion of the great questions of title and expediency; a task which I will proceed to discharge to the best of my ability.

The first I propose to examine is, the title of the United States to the territory in question. With respect to this, I perceive, it unfortunately happens that honorable gentlemen who support the bill do not precisely accord in sentiment. The gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Bradley) has frankly conceded that the United States acquired no title under the Treaty of St. Ildefonso. Another gentleman (Mr. Smith, of Maryland) has declared that the United States did derive a title under that treaty, and disclaims the title set up by the honorable gentleman from Vermont. I shall not undertake to decide which of the two gentlemen is right, if either be, but shall contend, and humbly expect to prove, that both are wrong.

What is the nature of the title set up by the gentleman from Vermont? Not under the treaty, he has candidly owned, but he supposes a title to exist on the ground of certain quaint principles of the common law, relative to the doctrines of estoppel and occupancy. I am extremely happy, sir, to find that honorable gentleman introducing the common law as authority upon this floor, especially on so great an occasion. His doctrines certainly evince both research and ingenuity, and show that he, like many with whom he acts, has not absolutely lost his veneration for the black letter. What are his doctrines? Why in the first place, he says, admitting that Spain did not cede Florida to France by the Treaty of St. Ildefonso, and admitting that France had no title to Florida on the 30th of April, 1803, when she ceded Louisiana to the United States, yet, as France has since acquired a title to the crown of Spain and her colonies, and as the French Plenipotentiary, when the treaty of 30th of April, 1803, was executed, did state and induce the American Ministers to understand and believe that Florida was comprehended in the cession, why the title, though France had it not when the treaty was signed, yet having it subsequently, immediately attached in the United States, and France is estopped from saying any thing to the contrary. This argument, sir, begs every thing: 1st. That the declarations on the part of the French Minister were made; 2dly, that being made they would operate to pass the title contrary to the express letter of the treaty; and lastly, that France has acquired a good title to the crown of Spain and her colonies. I will yield to the gentleman his first proposition, and grant, as he seems to desire it, that these representations were made—and what do they prove? Not that the title passed, but that the French Minister was too deep for the American Plenipotentiaries, and, to use a jockey phrase, took them in. Sir, the only legal effect of such a fraud would be, to violate the treaty—to annul the contract. France, to be sure, would be bound upon principles of equity to refund the purchase money.

If then, sir, I am correct in stating, that no conversations or verbal declarations, however fraudulent, would operate to control or vary the plain letter and intent of the treaty, as appearing on the face of it, then upon the gentleman's own acknowledgments no title to Florida could have passed to the United States under the treaty of 1803. For the gentleman has unequivocally admitted that Florida was not ceded by Spain to France by the Treaty of St. Ildefonso, and France, it is admitted on all sides, by the treaty of 1803, only ceded to the United States Louisiana, as fully, and in the same manner she acquired it from Spain by the Treaty of St. Ildefonso; nor, sir, can I admit that France has acquired a legitimate title to the crown and colonies of Spain, which must also appear before the gentleman can avail himself of his argument. What, Mr. President, is the nature of this title? Was it obtained bona fide for a fair and full consideration? No, sir, but by the most abominable perfidy, corruption and duress, of which the pages of history furnish an example. Was not the royal family decoyed by artifice from Madrid to Bayonne? Was not the old Monarch compelled to resign his crown to Ferdinand the Seventh, and was not that Prince a prisoner of Bonaparte; and, while in this condition, and, for aught we know, the bayonet at his breast, or the cup to his lips, constrained to resign his crown to the Emperor of France? Sir, what sort of title is this? Upon the eternal principles of justice, upon the principles of the common law and common sense, an instrument thus obtained is not obligatory on the party executing it.

But have the people of Spain acquiesced? No, sir; the instant publicity was given to the transaction they became indignant, and with one voice rose, resolved to resist this usurpation. To this hour they have not submitted.

But the gentleman has said that Spain is no longer able to hold Florida; that foreign emissaries will take it if the United States do not, and that it may be lawfully taken by the United States on the ground of the law of occupancy.

That title may be acquired by occupancy is not to be doubted. It is the mode by which title to property was originally acquired; but to obtain a title in this way the country must be vacant, uninhabited and not claimed by another proprietor. But in this instance is the territory vacant—or uninhabited—or abandoned by its proprietors? No, sir. The territory is either in the possession of Spain and claimed by her, or of the revolutionists, and if either be in possession, by the law of occupancy, you have no right to disturb them. Clearly then, sir, upon the principles and admissions of the honorable gentleman from Vermont, the United States have no title to Florida.

And now, sir, with the indulgence of the Senate, I will proceed to consider as briefly as possible the nature of this title as derived under the Treaty of St. Ildefonso. Here, it will be granted, I meet the question fairly. This, I presume, is the title relied upon, as well by the Executive as the majority of the supporters of this bill.

In order fully to understand this subject, it is necessary to inquire into the principal cause of the war of 1756. The eastern boundary of Louisiana, I believe, was the chief cause of that war. The French were in the possession of the Mississippi, and claimed as part of Louisiana not only the country to the west of that river, but east as far as the Alleghany mountains. France, having this claim, and being in possession of Canada, conceived the project of uniting Louisiana with Canada. To accomplish her purpose she established a line of posts from the Lakes to the Ohio, and commenced encroachments upon the then British colonies. These encroachments she was pressing so far that Great Britain perceived it would be necessary to repel them. This brought on the war of '56, which, after a bloody conflict of seven years, terminated disastrously to France and her allies, and resulted in the establishment of the Mississippi, the Iberville, and the lakes Maurepas and Pontchartrain, as the boundary of Louisiana, giving to Great Britain all the territory on the east of that boundary, except the island and town of New Orleans, and to France all upon the west, including the island and town of New Orleans.

A more particular examination of the results of this war is important. By it France lost Canada and most of her West India islands. Spain, the ally of France, lost Cuba. By the preliminary articles of peace between Great Britain, France, and Spain, signed at Fontainebleau, and dated the 3d November, 1762, France renounced all pretensions to Nova Scotia, and ceded and guarantied to his Britannic Majesty, in full right, Canada with all its dependencies. The 6th article stipulates, "In order to re-establish peace on the most solid and lasting foundations and to remove every subject of dispute with regard to the limits of the British and French Territories on the continent of North America, it is agreed that for the future the confines between the dominions of His Britannic Majesty and those of his most Christian Majesty, (French King,) 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, and of the lakes Maurepas and Pontchartrain to the sea; and to this purpose, the most Christian King cedes in full right, and guaranties to His Britannic Majesty, the river and port of Mobile, (now West Florida,) and every thing that he possesses, or ought to have possessed on the left (east) side of the river Mississippi, except the town of New Orleans, and the island on which it is situated, which shall remain to France." By the 18th article, Great Britain restores to Spain all that she had conquered in the island of Cuba, with the fortress of Havana. In consequence of which His Catholic Majesty (King of Spain) by the 19th article "cedes and guaranties in full right, to His Britannic Majesty, all that Spain possesses on the continent of North America, to the east or the south-east of the Mississippi, including Florida, with Fort St. Augustine and the bay of Pensacola." (Now consisting of East and a part of West Florida.) By the definitive treaty of peace and friendship between the Kings of Great Britain, France, and Spain, concluded at Paris on the 10th day of February, 1763, the preliminary articles were adopted, ratified, and confirmed. By another treaty bearing date the 3d day of November, 1762, the same day and year the preliminary articles are dated, as appears by the letter to M. L'Abbadie, which I will presently refer to, France cedes Louisiana to Spain, together with the town and island of New Orleans. This last-mentioned treaty has never been published, but the letter of the King of France to M. L'Abbadie recites the purport as well as date of it. This letter purports to be an order signed by the King of France, dated at Versailles, the 21st April, 1764, and directed to M. L'Abbadie, director-general, and commandant for His Majesty in Louisiana. This letter was published at New Orleans in October, 1764, and circulated amongst the French inhabitants there. It recites:

"By a special act, done at Fontainebleau, November 3, 1762, of my own will and mere motion, having ceded to my very dear and best beloved cousin the King of Spain, and to his successors, in full property, purely and simply, and without any exceptions, the whole country known by the name of Louisiana, together with New Orleans, and the island in which the said city is situated; and by another act done at the Escurial, November 13, in the same year, His Catholic Majesty having accepted the cession of the said country of Louisiana, and the city and island of New Orleans, agreeably to the copies of the said acts, which you will find hereunto annexed; I write you this letter to inform you, that my intention is, that on the receipt of these presents, whether they come to your hands by the officers of His Catholic Majesty or directly by such French vessels as may be charged with the same, you are to deliver up to the governor, or officer appointed for that purpose by the King of Spain, the said country and colony of Louisiana, and the posts thereon depending, likewise the city and island of New Orleans, in such state and condition as they shall be found to be in on the day of the said cession, willing that in all time to come they shall belong to His Catholic Majesty, to be governed and administered by his governors and officers, and as possessed by him in full property, without any exceptions."

From this document, and the treaties referred to, it appears that in the month of October, 1764, when the whole of Louisiana, with the island and town of New Orleans, was delivered to Spain, that Great Britain was in the peaceable possession of all the country on the east of the Mississippi. That with respect to Florida particularly, Great Britain was in possession, and nobody dreamed at that time, that Florida either East or West, was any part of Louisiana. Had it been so considered under the orders of the French King, to deliver the whole of the province to Spain, undoubtedly Florida would have been delivered.

Immediately after the cession of '62-3, Great Britain took possession of all the country on the east of the Mississippi, except only the town and island of New Orleans, and, in the year 1763 or '4, erected Old Florida, Pensacola, the river and port of Mobile, &c., into two distinct provinces, under the name of East and West Florida, names which they have borne ever since. In 1783, at the close of our Revolutionary war, Great Britain ceded to Spain East and West Florida, which, from that period to the present time, have been held by Spain under these names, as separate provinces from Louisiana. In the year 1800, when Spain was in possession of East and West Florida and Louisiana, as three several and distinct provinces, the famous Treaty of St. Ildefonso was concluded, whereby Spain "retrocedes to France 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." This treaty likewise has not been published, but the part just referred to is cited in the treaty between the United States and France of the 30th of April, 1803, whereby France cedes to the United States Louisiana, as fully and in the same manner as she acquired it of Spain by the Treaty of St. Ildefonso. Spain delivered possession in pursuance of the Treaty of St. Ildefonso to France, and France, in pursuance of the treaty of 1803, delivered possession to the United States, both powers receiving the country on the West of the Mississippi, with the island and city of New Orleans, like Spain originally received it from France, as the whole of Louisiana.

I have now, I believe, sir, given a full and I trust fair and correct statement of the evidences and facts relative to the question of title. A few remarks will close what I have to say on this head. The letter from the King of France to M. L'Abbadie, is a very important document. It shows that the King of France, under whom we claim, and by whose admissions we are bound, so long ago as 1764, treated and considered the country on the west of the Mississippi as the whole of Louisiana. That, so considering it, he ceded and delivered it to Spain, together with the island and town of New Orleans, from which latter words it may be inferred that even the island and town of New Orleans were then not considered a part of Louisiana. In 1800, when Spain ceded back the colony of Louisiana to France, that country was only known on the west of the Mississippi. The war '56, and the treaties of '62-3, had fixed the line and obliterated forever the name of Louisiana on the east of that river.

The Treaty of St. Ildefonso, of 1800, is a mere treaty of retrocession. The translation purports to be a treaty of cession, it is true, but acknowledged on all sides to be erroneous. The original treaty was in the French language, and it is by that we are to be governed. The expression in the original is "Sa Majesté Catholique promit et s'engage, de son cote, à retroceder à la Republique Française," &c. A retroceder signifying to retrocede, to restore, or to use a term familiar in the State I have the honor to represent, reconvey the colony of Louisiana to France, as it was when France conveyed it to Spain. The honorable gentleman from Kentucky, (Mr. Pope,) pressed by this argument, could only get round it by alleging that the original treaty between France and Spain was dated in 1761, prior to the settlement of the line and the cessions to Great Britain. But, unfortunately, he could not produce one title of authentic evidence to establish his position, a position absolutely negatived by the official letter to M. L'Abbadie. But that gentleman has further told us, that from the words "with the same extent 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 other States," an intention may be raised to include Florida. I fully subscribe to the gentleman's rule, that we must give such a construction to the treaty, and particularly to the passage just referred to, as will give effect, if possible, to all the parts; and this I apprehend may be done without having recourse to the forced construction contended for. In the first place, the two first members of the passage may be reconciled and have effect by considering them as a twofold description of the same territory. From abundant caution it is not uncommon to give various descriptions of the same object. Sometimes the name is simply used, sometimes it is described by metes and bounds, and sometimes by the names of the adjacent countries. Sometime a twofold, and sometimes a threefold description is given. And upon a critical examination, I think it will be found that this is the only true construction the instrument will bear. If you give it the construction the gentleman contends for, to wit: that the second member of the passage is an extension of the description given by the first, then the second includes the first, and of consequence the first would be nugatory and superfluous; which would be doing violence to the gentleman's own rule of construction. But if the gentleman will insist on giving to the second member an enlarged or extended sense, it may be done by applying it to the western boundaries of Louisiana. It is said that when France ceded Louisiana to Spain, in '62, the country extended on the west to the river Sabine, and that Spain, prior to the treaty of 1808, detached from Louisiana the territory south of the waters emptying into the Red River, and erected it into a new province under the name of the "Province of Texas." Sir, the operations on the Sabine are memorable. It is well known how mysteriously they were suspended by an arrangement in 1806, by which it was agreed that the Spaniards should not cross the Sabine, and that the Americans should not extend their settlements as far as that river. And for this purpose, to prevent collisions, until the difference should be settled, instructions were given that no surveys should be made west of a meridian passing by Nachitoches.

If the gentleman is not satisfied by travelling to the west, by going to the east he may find an application—the town and island of New Orleans, which, though named in the cession to Spain, are not named in the treaty of retrocession to France.

As to the third member of the passage, it is a formal provision introduced into most treaties, and would be understood if not expressed. Of course the cession would be subject to prior treaties with other States. In 1795, Spain concluded a treaty with the United States, whereby she agrees that the navigation of the Mississippi, in its whole breadth from its source to the ocean, shall be free to the citizens of the United States, and that they shall have the right to deposite their merchandise and effects in the port of New Orleans, free of duty for three years, and after that period, if the privilege is not extended at the port of New Orleans, she is to assign to the United States, on another part of the banks of the Mississippi, an equivalent establishment. To these provisions the clause in question I apprehend refers.

The holding or possession of Louisiana is correspondent with the construction I have given the treaty. When possession was originally delivered by France to Spain, Florida was not delivered or considered any part of the cession. When Louisiana, under the Treaty of St. Ildefonso was restored to France, Florida was not delivered. When Louisiana, under the treaty of 1803, was delivered to the United States, Florida was not comprehended. Indeed the Government of the United States then treated the country on the west of the Mississippi, including the town and island of New Orleans, as the whole of Louisiana, by receiving it and paying the purchase money, which by the terms of the treaty they were not bound to do, and which by the act of Congress creating the Louisiana stock they were not authorized to do, till after full and entire possession had been delivered.

Mr. President, is it conceivable that after the boundary in question had been established by the most solemn compact of nations, and consecrated by a long and bloody war, and, too, by a lapse of near forty years—is it conceivable that the territory in question, excluded by that boundary, and raised into a distinct province under a distinct name—a name it ever bore after the establishment of the boundary—is it, I say, sir, conceivable, if the parties meant to have included this province in the Treaty of St. Ildefonso, that it should not have been specifically named?

Mr. Clay.—Mr. President, it would have gratified me if some other gentleman had undertaken to reply to the ingenious argument which you have just heard. But not perceiving any one disposed to do so, a sense of duty obliges me, though very unwell, to claim your indulgence while I offer my sentiments on this subject, so interesting to the Union at large, but particularly to the western section of it. Allow me, sir, to express my admiration at the more than Aristidean justice, which, in a question of territorial title between the United States and a foreign nation, induces certain gentlemen to espouse the pretensions of the foreign nation. Doubtless, in any future negotiations, she will have too much magnanimity to avail herself of these spontaneous concessions in her favor, made on the floor of the Senate of the United States.

It was to have been expected, that in a question like the present, gentlemen, even on the same side, would have different views, and although arriving at a common conclusion, would do so by various arguments. And hence the honorable gentleman from Vermont entertains doubts with regard to our title against Spain, while 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 it. Our title 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 is proper to take a cursory view of the settlement of the country; the basis of European title to colonies in America being 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 Biloxi, near the Pascagoula, was settled. In 1719, the city of New Orleans was laid off, and the seat of the Government of Louisiana was established there. 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 the 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 limit of the province. It has, indeed, been asserted that by the 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 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 further 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, 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 express consent. The ancient charts and historians, therefore, of the country so represent it. Dupratz, one of the most accurate historians in point of fact and detail of the time, 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 held by France anterior to her cession of it in 1762, reached 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 is done with it at this epoch? By a secret convention of the 3d 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 the actual possession of West Florida. Well, sir, how does she dispose of it? She re-annexes 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; whereas the Governor of East Florida is placed wholly without his control, and is made amenable directly to the Governor of the Havana. And 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 rung with the nefarious speculations which were alleged to be practising 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 has 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 to be 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 the 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 that it then had 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. 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 the 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, had 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. Twenty one 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 from France to her. When, therefore, in this state of things, she says, in the Treaty of St. Ildefonso, that she retrocedes the province to France, can a doubt exist that she parts with, and gives back to France, the entire colony? To preclude the possibility of such a doubt, she adds, that she restores it, not in a mutilated condition, but in that precise condition in which France had, and she herself possessed it.

Having thus shown, as I conceive, a clear right in the United States to West Florida, I proceed to inquire if the proclamation of the President directing the occupation of property, which is thus fairly acquired by solemn treaty, be an unauthorized measure of war and of legislation, as has been contended.

The act of October, 1803, contains two sections, by one of which the President is authorized to occupy the territories ceded to us by France in the April preceding. The other empowers the President to establish a provisional government there. The first section is unlimited in its duration; the other is restricted to the expiration of the then session of Congress. The act, therefore, of March, 1804, declaring that the previous act of October should continue in force until the first of October, 1804, is applicable to the second and not the first section, and was intended to continue the provisional government of the President. By the act of the 24th of February, 1804, for laying duties on goods imported into the ceded territories, the President is empowered, whenever he deems it expedient, to erect the bay and river Mobile, &c., into a separate district, and to establish therein a port of entry and delivery. By this same act the Orleans Territory is laid off, and its boundaries are so defined as to comprehend West Florida. By other acts the President is authorized to remove by force, under certain circumstances, persons settling or taking possession of lands ceded to the United States.

These laws furnish a legislative construction of the treaty, correspondent with that given by the Executive, and they vest in this branch of the Government indisputably a power to take possession of the country, whenever it might be proper in his discretion. The President has not, therefore, violated the constitution, and usurped the war-making power, but he would have violated that provision which requires him to see that the laws are faithfully executed, if he had longer forborne to act. It is urged that he has assumed powers belonging to Congress in undertaking to annex the portion of West Florida between the Mississippi and the Perdido to the Orleans Territory. But Congress, as has been shown, has already made this annexation the limits of the Orleans Territory, as prescribed by Congress, comprehending the country in question. The President, by his proclamation, has not made law, but has merely declared to the people of West Florida what the law is. This is the office of a proclamation, and it was highly proper that the people of that Territory should be thus notified. By the act of occupying the country, the Government de facto, whether of Spain, or the revolutionists, ceased to exist; and the laws of the Orleans Territory, applicable to the country, by operation and force of law, attached to it. But this was a state of things which the people might not know, and every dictate of justice and humanity required, therefore, should be proclaimed. I consider the bill before us merely in the light of a declaratory law.

Never could a more propitious moment present itself for the exercise of the discretionary power placed in the President of the United States, and, had he failed to embrace it, he would have been criminally inattentive to the dearest interests of this country. It cannot be too often repeated, that if Cuba on the one hand, and Florida on the other, are in the possession of a foreign maritime power, the immense country belonging to the United States, watered by streams discharging themselves into the Gulf of Mexico—that is, one-third, nay more than two-thirds of the United States, comprehending Louisiana, is placed at the mercy of that power. The possession of Florida is a guarantee absolutely necessary to the enjoyment of the navigation of those streams. The gentleman from Delaware anticipates the most direful consequences from the occupation of the country. He supposes a sally from a Spanish garrison upon the American forces, and asks what is to be done? We attempt a peaceful possession of the country, to which we are fairly entitled. If the wrongful occupants under the authority of Spain assail our troops, I trust they will retrieve the lost honor of the nation in the case of the Chesapeake. Suppose an attack upon any portion of the American army within the acknowledged limits of the United States by a Spanish force? In such event there would exist but a single honorable and manly course. The gentleman conceives it ungenerous that we should at this moment, when Spain is encompassed and pressed on all sides by the immense power of her enemy, occupy West Florida. Shall we sit by, passive spectators, and witness the interesting transactions in that country—transactions which tend to jeopardize, in the most imminent degree, our rights, without interference? Are you prepared to see a foreign power seize what belongs to us? I have heard in the most credible manner that, about the period when the President took his measures in relation to that country, the agents of a foreign power were intriguing with the people there to induce them to come under his dominion.

Whether this be the fact or not, it cannot be doubted, that if you neglect the present auspicious moment—if you reject the proffered boon, some other nation, profiting by your errors, will seize the occasion to get a fatal footing in your southern frontier. I have no hesitation in saying, that if a parent country will not or cannot maintain its authority in a colony adjacent to us, and there exists in it a state of misrule and disorder, menacing our peace, and if moreover such colony, by passing into the hands of any other power, would become dangerous to the integrity of the Union, and manifestly tend to the subversion of our laws; we have a right, upon eternal principles of self-preservation, to lay hold of it. This principle alone, independent of any title, would warrant our occupation of West Florida. But it is not necessary to resort to it, our title being in my judgment incontestably good.