The national intelligencer and Washington advertiser. (Washington City [D.C.]), 1804-09-24 00:00:00

NATIONAL INTELLIGENCER, WASHINGTON ADVERTISER.
VOL. IV.
WASHINGTON CITY, PRINTED BY SAMUEL HARRISON SMITH, PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE.
DCXIX.
FIVE DOLLARS PER ANN.
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 24th, 1804.
PAID IN ADVANCE.
FOREIGN NEWS.
LONDON, July 15—23.
A private letter from Vienna, dated July 6, states as follows:—“Every day the French interest gains ground; under the name of courtiers, and of officers of Bonaparte's guards, new intrigues arrive; provided with plenty of money, diamonds, and other allurements for the unprincipled, avaricious, and corrupt. Their impudence is as surprising as their expenses are extravagant; and every lover of his country, and of the honor and independence of Germany, trembles when he observes their presence and influence, not only in the anti-chambers of Ministers, at the levees of the Emperor, in the boulevards of female favorites, but in the council room and in the cabinet, they dare, but at the same time stoop, to every thing; the most impertinent and audacious proposals are made, and the most severe rebukes or refusals are received with a bow only. They return, however, to the charge, and finally carry their point. This explains our conduct both here, at Ratisbon, and at Paris; and many think that the return of Baron Thugut to head our councils, can alone save us from disgrace, and Germany from dishonor and ruin. Cobentzel here, and our Cobentzel in France, are both narrow minded and weak statesmen, who regard the present as every thing, and futurity nothing. They think they have gained a great point by procuring Bonaparte's permission for the Archduke Antoine, to be coadjutor to the Arch-chancellor Elector of Mentz, though they have been unable to obtain for his brother, the Grand Duke of Tuscany, the indemnity due to him according to the treaty of Luneville. An usurper, who prevents the execution of sworn treaties, cares little about respecting an agreement which promises to make a coadjutor a successor; not to mention that this favor, or rather intrigue, is to be the price of an act, by which our good and virtuous sovereign acknowledges for an equal, a low adventurer, equally ambitious and ferocious, and whose atrocities better times would have rewarded with a gibbet instead of a throne.—I must, however, do the majority of my countrymen justice, because they are neither the cupids of Bonaparte's promises, nor blinded by the gold his emissaries squander away.”
Letters from Holland speak highly of the improvements in the defence of the Dutch coast, executed according to the orders of General Marmont; and if France has an iron frontier, thanks to his talents and his zeal. North Holland is an iron coast which may defy an attack from the whole united navy of Great Britain. On the different points of the Helder and in the Texel, are no less than eighty batteries, containing 500 pieces of heavy artillery, of a form and calibre after the improved French model, able to carry their balls at least two hundred feet farther than the old ones.
The Hamburg mails inform us that the Elector of Baden has at length given in his note to the diet at Ratisbon. It is pullanimum to the last degree, and is precisely what was expected. The ministers of Austria and Prussia have acquiesced in this defence of the conduct of Bonaparte. A memorial from his Britannic Majesty, as Elector of Hanover, was delivered into the Diet on the 30th. It relates to the occupancy of Hanover by the French troops. But what can the states of Germany do for us? The French troops will not quit Hanover but by force, and force is war.
From Paris, July 9.—The grand parade yesterday was the first that took place in the Emperor's presence since his elevation to the Imperial dignity. The exclamations of “Long live the Emperor!” were heard from all parts as soon as his majesty appeared. The cavalry clashed their swords in demonstration of joy. The rest of the troops, and the great crowds of spectators joined in these demonstrations, and repeated the same exclamations.
There are 2000 vacancies in the Legion of Honor, and 54,600 petitioners have applied for them.
The activity of the French government, both in military and naval preparations in Italy is unrelaxed. An army of 30,000 men is to be immediately stationed near Leghorn, and a considerable quantity of shipping for transporting troops is building at Genoa.
The government of the Republic having heard that the council of state has decreed eleven articles, regulating the Legion of Honor, by which the
quality of a member is lost by the same causes that destroy the right of a French citizen, the Grand Judge, and the Ministers of War and the Marine, are to send to the Grand-Chancellor, copies of all judgments on this subject. No infamous punishment can be inflicted on any member, provided the Legionary has not been degraded. The formula in which such degradation is to be pronounced, is as follows:—“You have lost your honor, I declare in the name of the Legion, that you have ceased to be a member.”
The Dutch armaments for the invasion have been officially reported completely ready for service.
A strange manifesto appears in the Moniteur, which we have omitted to give, as it is merely meant to display the mercy of France in her treatment of the powers within her reach, and to challenge her title to the respect and admiration of the world. She takes merit to herself that she has not incorporated Holland, as if Holland was not in a worse state of vassalage than if it were in reality a department of France; she puts in her claim to gentleness that Switzerland has not been converted into a French province, and that the Italian States are left free. This is an argument something similar to that of the felon, who being cast for a highway robbery, pleaded for mercy, because he had not murdered the man whom he had robbed.
It is strange to observe how all the German states flock round the new Imperial Throne, which they seem more eager to acknowledge, as descending from the ancient Cæsars, than that with which Austria is invested. The Court of Vienna must naturally be jealous of this, and the States of the Empire, who have ever looked with envy on the usurpation of Austria, gladly seize the opportunity of mortifying her.
We have been favored with the following private letter from Paris, of the 8th instant:—
“I take the earliest opportunity of sending you intelligence from this place, where I arrived on Thursday last. I visit the Thuilleries daily, and shall have an opportunity of sending you every thing worthy notice.—Already I perceive the dissatisfied stillness and secret murmurings of the days of Robespierre wherever I go. Discontent is most evident in all parts of Paris. The death of the duke D'Enghien has caused universal disgust; and the late conspiracy is openly spoken of at the Palais Royal as the production of Bonaparte's genius. Persons are openly pointed at in the gardens, who were in London the last winter preceding the conspiracy, and endeavoring to implicate as much as possible the French emigrant princes in the plot. The death of Pichegru, the execution of Georges, &c. have given evident satisfaction; but the trial and banishment of Moreau more than anything else. It is supposed here, that had they condemned and executed Moreau, nothing could have prevented a fresh scene of insurrection.”
“A caricature print is privately handed about, but not sold, in which Bonaparte is represented on his Throne, surrounded by his brothers, with the bloody corpse of the Duke D'Enghien at his feet, over which is written “Princes of Blood.”
From Berlin, June 20.—The most melancholy intelligence is continually arriving here of the havoc made by the recent inundation in Silesia, in the Lausitz, &c. The city of Sagan has been entirely under water, and 50 houses completely destroyed; and in its environs, several houses, bridges, and indeed whole villages have been carried away by the force of the water; great numbers of sheep and oxen, and 49 persons have been drowned. A Christianstadt the Boder threatened the whole city with destruction; every one fled, and the bridges were forced along by the current. The inhabitants climbed up the loftiest trees, in hopes of saving their lives; but these unable to withstand the violence of the water, were thrown down, and the unhappy persons who had taken refuge on their branches and their tops, were precipitated into a watery grave. Similar disasters have affixed several other places: and even on the mountains the damage has been considerable. In South Prussia, the fatal effects of this inundation have also been severely felt. Two whole families, going from one town to another, on a visit to their relations, were surrounded by the water, and drowned.
General Savery, with a detachment of gens d'armes, accompanies general Moreau on his journey through France to Spain.—Moreau will embark at Ba-
celona on board a neutral ship for America.
In the night of the 22d ult. General Moreau left the Temple under an escort of 50 gens d'armes d'Elite. His first destination was Perpignan, from which place he is to go to Spain, and embark there on board a neutral vessel for North America. Madame Moreau followed her husband the next day. He is only to travel during the night, and to rest during the day. His brother is gone before him to Spain, accompanied by an officer of the gens d'armes. His object is to hire and fit out a proper vessel for his brother and family. All their property in France is to be disposed of, and they intend to settle at Philadelphia.
As the condemned persons were adjudged to pay jointly and severally the expenses of the process, which amount to a million and a half of livres, the greatest part of the burthen will fall on Moreau, who among them possesses the most property. It is said, that his Imperial Highness Prince Louis, will purchase the Chateau and Park where Moreau resided.
It was proposed to Georges the day before his execution, to apply to the Emperor, with the assurance that he might probably obtain his pardon; he, however, did not comply with this proposal, and displayed the most undaunted resolution at his execution.
The Conservatorium of Music has laid before the Emperor a plan for instituting an Hotel des Invalides for decayed or old musicians, actors, dancers, singers, actresses, &c. It has been referred to the members of the Council of State. According to this plan the Emperor is to advance 500,000, and with one, two, or three per cent. in the year, taken from the salaries of persons of that description in good health, and a hotel is to be built and provided with all necessaries sufficient to contain 2400 persons of both sexes, who have figured on the stage, at concerts, or in the orchestra, but who, from age, disease, wounds, or accidents, in amusing the public or performing their duty, are now wanting succours, or languishing in want, both at Paris and in the departments.
The new bridge over the Seine, at Paris, is now finished. It is of wood, very beautifullly executed, but is for foot passengers only. It is of great breadth, and ornamented in the centre with fine trees and flowers. It is rather elevated and can be distinguished from many parts of the city.
IMPERIAL DECREES. Decree for taking the Oath, and the Coronation of the Emperor, and the other accessory ceremonies.
Palace of St. Cloud, 21 Messidor, An. 12.
NAPOLEON, by the Grace of God and the constitution of the Empire, Emperor of the French, having taken the advice of his Privy Council, decrees:
FIRST SECTION. The taking of the Oath and the Coronation.
ART. 1. The solemnity of the oath and the coronation of the Emperor, shall take place on the 18th Brumaire next, (Nov. 9.)
2. A proclamation shall announce this solemnity to the whole empire, and shall summon those who are to assist at it, specified in the Senate's Consultum of last Floreal, to appear at Paris before the 10th Brumaire.
3. Particular letters shall be addressed to them on the part of his Majesty.
4. The public functionaries who are summoned, shall make known their arrival to the principal Master of the Ceremonies, who will indicate the place appointed for them at the ceremony.
5. The solemnity of taking the oath and the coronation will take place in presence of the Empress, the Princes, Princesses, High Dignitaries and all the public functionaries, described by the Senate's Consultum, of the 28th Floreal, in the chapel of the Invalides.
SECOND SECTION. Of the ceremony which will take place in the Champ de Mars.
6. After the solemnity of the taking the oath and the coronation, his majesty the Emperor will proceed to the Champ de Mars.
7. The national guards of every department of the empire will send to Paris a detachment of 16 men, with colors for each detachment, one half of which shall be fusileers or grenadiers, one fourth officers, and one fourth non-commissioned officers.
8. Maritime departments, squadrons, flotillas, and armed vessels of the empire, shall send 50 detachments of 10 men, with a flag to each detachment.
9. Every corps of all the different descriptions throughout the army, shall send a deputation of 16 men, the half of which shall be grenadiers, fusileers, soldiers, dragoons, light horse, one fourth officers, and one fourth non-commissioned officers, with the colours, standard, or guidon.
10. The preceding article is applicable to the regiment of marine artillery.
11. The engineers shall send three deputations of 16 men each.
12. The 26 legions of the gens d'armes shall each send a deputation of 4 men and a guidon.
13. The invalids of the hotel at Paris, and those of Louvain and Avignon, shall send three deputations, whose composition shall be regulated according to the instruction of the war minister.
14. All these deputations shall successively take the oath of fidelity and obedience to his Majesty the Emperor.
15. The deputations of the national guards, those of the maritime circles, and such of the corps who have colors, guidons, or standards, shall afterwards receive from his majesty, for their departments or regiments, a pair of colors for each department, a flag for each detachment of marine, and a guidon or standard for each battalion or squadron.
16. The colours of the departments shall remain in the most conspicuous place of the Hotel of the Prefect, under the guard already settled for the Prefects. They shall never be taken from thence but by an officer named by the Emperor; and shall be honored and shown to the people on all solemn occasions.
17. The flags shall be distributed among the maritime circles, and deposited at the marine hotel, under a guard of honour, in the principle place of the Seven Circles in which Antwerp is comprised, in order to be given to the squadrons, naval armies, flotillas, or other armaments and expeditions, according to the order of the Emperor.
On their return, these flags shall be carried to the marine hotel, where they will be kept in the Council Chamber, for some succeeding expedition.
18. The colours, standards, and guidons of the corps shall be returned to each battalion or squadron. Those who, by the events of war, shall lose them, shall not receive others of the same kind, but by a direct order from his majesty; after it has been proved that they were not lost by any fault of the regiment. Those who shall lose them from their own fault, shall not receive any others from the Emperor.
(Signed) NAPOLEON.
SCHIEDAM, July 14.
The declaration of the elector of Baden to the Diet, on the alleged infringement of his territory, by the French, has at length appeared; it breathes nothing but conciliation, and will doubtless form no part of the deliberation of the Diet. On the other hand, the misunderstanding or coolness between the governments of France and Russia seems to be widening.
Note from Mr. Drake to the Bavarian Minister of State, Baron Montegelès, delivered at Munich, March 30, 1804.
“The undersigned envoy extraordinary from his Britannic Majesty, has been informed that his electoral highness has been pleased, at the requisition of the French government, to give a hint to all noblemen, who quitted France during the revolution, and may now be found in his dominions, to leave the same within ten days without excepting those who are dependent on the British government. Although this account appears to be tolerably authentic, the undersigned cannot give any credit to it, without receiving a confirmation thereof from his excellency Baron Montegelès, as he is too well convinced of the just and generous sentiments of his electoral highness, to believe that his highness could have consented to such a demand from a power which has formerly declared, by the fourth article of its own constitution, that there are not any relations left existing between it and the persons against whom that measure is supposed to be taken; this deprives it of the right to assume any authority with respect to them; a principle which your excellency owed yourself, at a time when it was in agitation to prohibit in this country the decorations of the French Monarch. The undersigned is the more justified in his supposition, that he must have been misinformed on this subject, as knowing how forely the feeling heart of his electoral highness must be affected, if oblig-
ed to exercise any rigour towards persons, against whom no cause of reproach can be alleged; unless it be a reproach, that they have shown themselves so firmly devoted to their duties, and to that sovereign house with which his electoral highness formerly stood connected in so many respects.”
“The undersigned is moreover convinced, that it could not escape the enlightened wisdom of his electoral highness, that a similar exercise of rigour, against those respectable, and already unfortunate persons, would form a cruel example of the fate awaiting those who, in a moment of danger, are inclined to remain true to their lawful sovereign; and with example may induce them to swerve from their duty, at the very moment when a sovereign stands most in need of the efforts and actual proofs of their attachment.”
“The undersigned has therefore the honour to request Baron Von Montegelès to clear up his doubts on this subject, and to inform him, whether the measure in question will extend to the officers of the late Godean army, who are attached to the British government, that he may be enabled to acquaint his court thereof, and to await the commands of his sovereign accordingly.”
“The undersigned avails himself of the opportunity to request Baron Von Montegelès to accept the assurances of his most particular regard, &c.”
(Signed) “FRANCIS DRALEIGH.”
From the same to the same. Munich, March 31.
“I have just received a notice of so very extraordinary a nature, but which is so important of itself, and from the consequences which may result, from it, that though I am very far from crediting it, I think it a duty I owe to my sovereign, to whom my person and services belong, as well as to his highness the elector himself, immediately to inform your excellency thereof. The said notice is in substance to the following purport:—the seizure of the British minister at Munich is in agitation, in the manner of that which took place with respect to his highness the duke of Enghien, at Ettenheim, in the territory of the Elector of Baden, with but this difference, that the second seizure will not be effected by a body of troops, but by men secretly sent to Munich, and its neighbourhood, by different roads. With respect to the moment and particulars of the execution, I have no detailed accounts; and I own to your excellency, that the difficulties of the enterprise appeared to me from the first too great, the project itself too extravagant, and at the same time too dreadful to be fully convinced of its existence; on the other hand, it cannot be concealed, that the example of events which have very recently occurred as it were under our eyes, are little calculated to inspire confidence. However this may be, and little as this notice has affected me personally, yet it appears to me, that I should be transgressing the duties which my post, as a public minister require, if I neglected informing your excellency thereof forthwith, that you may be enabled to take in time such measures as the case may require, and to avert, by proper acts of precaution, the unpleasant result which might arise, even from the attempt to execute a design of this nature. I beg your excellency to accept the assurance, &c.”
(Signed) “FRANCIS DRAKE.”
From the Laren Gazette of July 13.
RATISBON, June 30.
The sitting of the Diet begins by degrees to deserve some attention. On the 23th of this month, the convention lately concluded between the Duke of Oldenbourg, in his quality of Prince of Lubec, and the city of that name, became the subject-matter of a declaration from his Danish majesty in support of his ancient rights; and this declaration has been followed by a counter declaration on the part of the Duke. In the following sitting of the General Assembly on the 27th, Brunswick-Lauenburg interfered more seriously in opposing a negotiation of the Great-Bentheim-Heinfurt with the French government, to obtain of the latter the cession of the county of Bentheim, one of the dependencies of Hanover. The Baron De Reden, the king of England's Representative at the Diet, has on the

Head transmitted a protest, which declared null and void, every act tending to alienate any part whatever of his German possessions, without his majesty's consent.
The declaration transmitted by the minister of Hanover, has been followed by another appeal to the Germanic Body on the part of Brunswick Lüneburg. There was presented and read to-day, to the delegates of the states of the empire, a letter from the electoral minister, de Reden, relative to an object much more important, and which involves the empire in infinite difficulty. Monsieur de Reden refers to the demand made by him, in the name of his prince on the 22d of August last; that the German states should employ themselves in an effectual manner to terminate the unfortunate situation of Hanover, invaded by the French as a dependency of the Crown of England. Monsieur de Reden urges, in addition to former arguments, "that his Britannic majesty has always favored his concern as a state of the empire from those of his crown; this distinction he adores, was always recognized by the Germanic Body and by France during the last war, and also in the treaties of Campo Formio and Lunéville." These representations conclude with beseeching the competent ministers to procure from their courts, without delay, the necessary instructions to come to a speedy decision on so important an object; but there is much reason to doubt the exertion of this promptitude, at a moment when the Diet, notwithstanding the contrary invitation of one of the principal powers of the continent, is about to pass over in silence the French expedition to the right bank of the Rhine in March last. The Baden declaration, which is definitely to settle all the discussions on the subject, arrived on the evening of the 26th, at the Prussian minister's the count De Goertz, who is likewise invested with the vote of the elector of Baden, at the Diet. The arrival of this declaration accelerated the following day, a conference between the imperial commissary, the baron de Hugel, the diecioval minister of the Diet, baron d'Albin, & M. Goertz. This paper has not yet been communicated to the Diet, but it will be the day after to-morrow, the 2d of July. The prospect of such a communication makes us expect with great impatience the next sitting of the comitial assembly. In fact, this paper, which has already attracted so much public curiosity, ought now to fix it so much the more, if it be true, as is positively stated, that the emperor Alexander has acquiesced in it, and has thereby retracted his former relations.
WASHINGTON CITY.
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER, 24.
Arrivals to the Eastward have brought English Intelligence as late as the 15th of August, which is, however, of little interest—Details in our next.
From the POLITICAL REGISTER.
In the discharge of an important, and to myself an indispensable duty, the subjoined statement was communicated, in the first instance to the government, in a respectful solicitude, for the rights and interest of our country the deposition and letters are now made public.
W. JACKSON.
Sept. 20th.
On Thursday, September 6th, 1804, about noon, a note of which the following is a transcript, left at my office, as my clerk informed me, by a person who lives with Mr. Francis Breuil, merchant in Philadelphia.
"The Marquis de Cañ Y ujo presents his compliments to Major Jackson and would be very happy to know from him when and where he could have the pleasure to see him in the course of this day."
Thursday 6"
Never having before received any communication from Mr. Yrujo—never having even exchanged one word of conversation with him in my life—I was not a little surprised at receiving this message, which I answered by a note to the following purport:
"Major Jackson presents his compliments to the Marquis de Cañ Yrujo—in reply to his note of this morning, just now received, Major Jackson will be at his office until 2 o'clock—and at his house in Chestnut Street, next to Gen Dickins, until 4 o'clock—at either of which places he will see the Marquis de Cañ Yrujo—or, if more convenient, he will wait on him."
Thursday Sept. 6.
This note was sent by Mr. Johnson, my clerk, and left at Gov. McKean's, Mr. Breuil called on me soon after, and said, that the Marquis de Cañ Yrujo would be glad to see me at the Marquis' house at 5 o'clock.
I asked Mr. Breuil if he knew on what business Mr. Yrujo wanted to see me—he said he did not know.
I went at 5 o'clock to Mr. Yrujo's house, and on entering the room, was received by him in nearly the following words:
"You will be surprised Major Jackson, at the liberty I have taken in lending
to you, but I trust an explanation of the motive will excuse me. I consider you, Sir, as a gentleman, a man of letters, and a man of honor."
"By a political intolerance you have been forced to adopt a profession different from what you have heretofore pursued—but it is one in which you are qualified to be very useful. I observe by certain opinions expressed in your paper that you consider the present administration (for I will not call them government) as disinclined to go to war with Spain, however you are mistaken; the reverse is the fact—and they only with the federal papers to utter those opinions that they may have an argument of that sort for indulging their will to go to war with my country, which would certainly be very injurious to you; for if the king my master, was to order three ships of the line and six frigates to the Mississippi—three ships of the line and six frigates to the Chesapeake—and three ships of the line and six frigates to Sandy Hook—what would do? But you have it in your power, to do much good, by espousing the part of peace, which is so necessary to both nations—and if you will consent to take elucidations on the subject from me, I will furnish them—and I will furnish them—and I will make you any acknowledgments." Perceiving, at this moment, his infamous purpose, I with difficulty listed the emotions which it excited, and restrained my indignation. He went on to examine in detail the several points in dispute between Spain and the United States—and, as I wished to learn his opinions respecting them, I suffered him to proceed. Among other things he said, that if Mr. Pinkney had acted by instructions from the administration, or if his conduct should be approved by them war was inevitable. But he had no doubt war was the will of our administration—for he had received a letter from a New Orleans dated on the 25th April last, which stated that there was a letter at that place in Mr. Jefferson's hand writing, dated in March last, which declared that if the settlers between the Mississippi and the Rio Perdido, would raise the American colors they should be supported.
He continued his observations, and pressed me to give him an answer—assuring me that this was no diplomatic management, but an epanchement (unbosoming) of himself to me as a man of honor and he trusted I would so consider it. I then quitted the room; he went with me to the street door, and again asked me when I would give him an answer. With difficulty I suppressed the indignation of my feelings and left the house.
W. JACKSON.
Sworn the 7th Sept. 1804. That the contents of the within statement are just and true.
EDWD. SHIPPEN, chief Justice of the supreme court of Pennsylvania.
Philadelphia, Sept. 7, 1804.
SIR, Considerations paramount to all others, the love of my country, and a sense of personal honor, which no change of fortune or circumstance can ever efface or diminish, have decided me, on the present occasion to address you.
The accompanying document refers to the most interesting objects that can engage my attention, and for the moment, those objects banish every other remembrance.
Mr. Yrujo's official character, precludes the only reparation I would consent to receive for this attempt against my honor. It is for you Sir, to determine what satisfaction is due to our country and its government.
I shall wait the time necessary to learn your decision before I give further publicity to the transaction.
I am Sir,
Your most obedient servant,
W. JACKSON.
Thomas Jefferson, Esq. president of the United States.
Montecello, Sept. 15, 1804.
SIR, I have received your letters of the 7th and 9th inst. and shall use their contents in due time and place for the benefit of our country, as you seem sufficiently apprised that the person of the Marquis Yrujo is under the safe-guard of the nation, and secured by its honor against all violation. I need add nothing on that head. On another however I may be permitted to add that if the information respecting a letter said to have been written by me was meant as a sample of the communications proposed to be given to you, their loss will not be great. No such letter was ever written by me by my authority, or with my privity, with my acknowledgements for the communication I tender you my salutations. T. JEFFERSON. Major William Jackson.
* Duplicate.
For the NATIONAL INTELLIGENCER.
TO THE PEOPLE.
THE DEFENCE.
N. IV.
IN reviewing the measures of the administration we shall divide them ac-
cording to their connection with the great departments of the government. By this course we shall be enabled to make some approaches to system, and to assign responsibility its proper limits.
Before we proceed to this enquiry, it is necessary to take a short view of the distribution of powers under the constitution, which appears in the discussions of the day, to have been entirely left sight of, and which it is essentially necessary to understand to avoid running into error in the estimates made of Executive conduct.
The Constitution establishes three great departments of power, the legislative, executive and judicial. Congress constitutes the first, the President the second, and the judges the last. In the discharge of judicial functions the President does not, in the least, co-operate except so far as to nominate the judges. In those of legislation he has a qualified agency. In the formation of treaties this agency is only limited by the will of the Senate; but in the enactment of laws it is extremely circumscribed. It is limited to a simple negative, which is unavailing in case two thirds of each House repass a bill. In Congress laws are initiated; there all their details are examined. That body is constituted for this express, and almost exclusive object. One of its branches is chosen directly by the people every two years, while the other is the representative of the states. From these considerations, there can be no doubt that the responsibility of making good laws was intended by the Constitution to reside in Congress. Was it likewise the intention of that instrument that the chief magistrate should share it with them? To a certain extent, it certainly was; but to what extent is not so certain. The theory of the British constitution, which appears to have been steadily in the contemplation of the Convention, vests this power, without any qualification, in the King. Yet that magistrate, notwithstanding the monarchical structure of the government, and the little respect paid to public opinion, has waived the exercise of it for more than a century. It may be said that the President has strong claims to participate in the enactment of laws than the king, from his being elected by the people; but to this it is a sufficient answer to say, that it is inadmissible in a republic, to consider one man, for the enactment of laws, as faithful a representative as many men, brought from every section of the union; and further, that the British Parliament, composed of an hereditary house of Lords, and a house of Commons, which have long since ceased to represent the people, cannot be considered as filling the same political sphere with an American Congress; inasmuch as the latter is the bona fide representative of the people and the states; while the former is little more than an aristocratic association. If, therefore, under such a government, experience has evinced the danger and impolicy of interposing the Executive veto; how much more dangerous and impolitic would its exercise be likely to be in frustration of the decided will of the nation, expressed through their immediate representatives.
It will not be concealed that the constitution requires the approbation of the President to every bill before it becomes a law. "If he APPROVE, he shall sign it." It is absolutely necessary, then, that he should approve before he signs a bill; it follows that if he disapprove a bill he shall not sign it. Of what nature are we then to consider this approbation?
It may be assumed as certain that the same unqualified approbation is not implied as by the legislative body. The latter are called upon to pursue bills into all their details, to accept or reject different parts, and to introduce whatever modification they think proper. The former is only permitted to approve or reject, in the whole, without the power of suggesting any amendment. Further;—before a bill can be submitted to him, it must have received the approbation of both branches of the legislature, the representatives of the people and of the states. When, therefore, a bill, under these circumstances is submitted to him, it is apparent that the case is essentially varied from that which existed during its progress through the legislature. All enquiry into its details arising from the desire of improving them is foreclosed. The opinion of the legislature, virtually that of the people, is declared in its favor. It only remains to the President to decide whether, under these circumstances, the public good may be promoted or injured by his approbation. The bill may be unwise or imperfect; and yet the public good be subserved by suffering it to go into effect. It may be advisable that the experiment should be tried, and the public profit by their own errors. But paramount to these motives to forbearance, the chief magistrate, if sincerely devoted to republican institutions, will feel the necessity of refraining a disposition to array his own individual opinion in hostility to that of the nation, as conveyed through their peculiar organs of legislation. He will habitually distrust the suggestions of his own mind when opposed to their will. While, therefore, he will not hesitate to exert
the high prerogative, with which he is invested, on great occasions, in which the voice of duty is loud and commanding, and in which the public good unequivocally requires it, he will, with cautious wisdom, forego its exercise on all other occasions.
His legislative responsibility will, therefore, be in a narrow compass; it will depend upon the single consideration whether, under all the circumstances attending the proposition of laws submitted to him, the public welfare will be promoted by his sanction.
This view has been taken for the purpose of separating the legislative from the executive responsibility of the government. It is no less incorrect, than it is common, to consider the executive responsible for all the acts of the government. However this opinion may prevail among the friends of a monarchical system, it is not the less a heresy under ours. As neither the legislative or judicial departments are responsible for the acts of the executive department, so neither is the Executive answerable for theirs. The Constitution forbids the President except in the prescribed orbit we have delineated, or by advice given to Congress, to interfere with the powers of the legislature. No less is all such interference forbidden by the jealous independence with which every public agent, equally with every private citizen, is in this country accustomed to assert his rights. No doubt can be entertained, that under the joint influence of these considerations, the chief magistrate, who should attempt to usurp the legislative power either by direct or indirect means, would soon learn that the high power of impeachment was not fruitlessly reposed in the legislature. It is not then true, that the President is absolutely responsible for all the legislative acts passed during his administration. The probability is that many of these acts are such as he, in the character of a legislator or a citizen, would never have assented to.
Among these acts are two of the first importance; the judiciary act, and the amendment to the Constitution; neither of which were recommended, or even suggested by the President. It will be most regular to consider these measures, in this place, as they do not properly fall under either of the great provisions we have proposed; and as they have little, if any necessary connection with executive duties.
On no occasion, perhaps, has there been a more daring spirit of falsehood than on these. Both these measures have, without the least reason, been ascribed to the President. Whereas, the truth is, that in his official capacity, he has not, and could not even notice the one; and has no otherwise noticed the other than by giving his assent to a bill previously passed by the two Houses. Nor has any proof of his private opinions, on either of these points, transpired to this day. Even that ardor of mind, so apt in the elimination of his enemies to betray him into an imprudent exposure of his opinions, has not furnished occasion for a solitary charge. By a bold assumption, that, inasmuch as his general politics coincided with those of the legislature who devised these measures, he must therefore be considered as friendly to them, and being friendly to them, must be considered as their author, an attempt has been made to make him pre-eminently responsible for all their effects. Thus does party fury, as blind as headstrong, without discrimination seek its victim, and having once marked him, hunt him to destruction, not for sins actually committed by him, but for all the sins committed by others.
It is true that the general subject of the judiciary was recommended, in the first message, to the attention of Congress. But in what terms? Not in those of hostility to the new system; but in the following dispassionate language:
"The judiciary system of the United States, says the President, and especially that portion of it recently vested, will of course present itself to the contemplation of Congress; and that they may be able to judge of the proportion which the institution bears to the business it has to perform, I have caused to be procured from the several states, and now lay before Congress, an exact statement of all the causes decided since the first establishment of the courts, and if those which were depending when additional courts and judges were brought in to their aid."
No opinion is expressed of the origin or the tendencies of the new judiciary system; information only is given on this, as on a variety of other objects, v. z. on the receipts of the several taxes, their application to the various objects designated by law; on the state of the militia; on our foreign relations; on our naval strength; on the establishment of the mint; on fortifications, and many other objects. As well might it be inferred that from the mere exhibition of the situation of the various establishments of the government, the President intimated the propriety of their destruction or radical modification, as that, by this information, relative to the judiciary, he intended to inculcate the expediency of repealing the act of 1800. As his conduct is similar in all these
cases, it is but just to ascribe to him a common motive applicable to them all. The constitution expressly commanding him to "give to Congress information of the state of the union"—and "to recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient;" assigns two distinct and separable duties. In relation to the judiciary, he discharged the one uninterwoven with the other.
In other cases where he judged certain measures necessary and expedient, he did not scruple to declare his opinion, as in the case of the internal taxes, and the retrenchment of numerous sources of expense; thus evincing to every correct mind, capable of deducing a sound inference, that as on points where he expressed an opinion, he wished that opinion to operate as a recommendation; so on points where no opinion was expressed, he deliberately withheld all recommendation.
This measure must then be considered as purely legislative in its origin, as well as nature; and of consequence, Congress, and not the President, are responsible for it.
It is not the object of these remarks to supercede the necessity of its investigation. Viewed as a great question of policy, destined, according to its solution, to have a leading agency in its effects on the public welfare, it becomes the duty of every intelligent citizen to understand it. This shall be our apology, for dwelling on it a few minutes longer.
In reviewing the voluminous discussions to which the repealing law gave rise, we perceive a mixed mass of eloquence, of party animadversion, and of argument. Being the first important debate, after the change of the administration, it was seized as the occasion of contending, in all their features of dissimilitude, the two hostile parties. The minority, unaccustomed to submission, resolved to make a desperate effort to regain their powers; and fancied they saw in this measure the means. This accounts for this heterogeneous mixture; for which, however, another reason may be assigned. No class of men are less competent to the discussion of great questions of policy than lawyers. In the habit of testing all contended points by precedent , they rarely bend the powers of their mind to the development of principle . Looking out of their own minds for every thing, it is not strange that they gradually sink into the vehicles of the ideas of others. Their faith insensibly, like that of the church, in proportion as it distrusts its own powers, clings to that of the saints. It may be added that the routine of their duties, by exhausting their capacity on little things, necessarily disqualifies them from taking the enlarged views which national legislation demands. Of this description of men the minority was principally composed. We are not, therefore, surprised at minds thus feeble, instead of courting the distinction of a strong plain, and concise view of the subject, endeavoring to develop it by a mass of inapplicable precedents, of crude opinions, and fanciful analogies.
Notwithstanding the volumes written upon this subject, it is apprehended that its merits lie in a narrow compass. Two views have been taken of it, and it is capable of no other. Is it constitutional ? and is it expedient ? Its justification required that it should be both.
It is allowed on all hands, that Congress possessed the power of modifying, at pleasure, the existing judiciary laws, so far as they regarded the duties of the judges. The first words of the Constitution declare that "all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."—The power is unlimited.
A subsequent section says "Congress shall have power to constitute tribunals inferior to the supreme court."
The language is not imperative. They may, or may not, exercise it. A subsequent section gives the further power, "to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."
On this point, therefore, the legislative power is perfect, and commands as well as tails, as general principles. The tribunals, inferior to the supreme court are the creatures of legislation; as without legislation they could not have existed. The duties of those who fill them are defined by law. They may, by law, be increased, or diminished. To their augmentation there is a constitutional limit; but there is none to their diminution. There is no portion of the power, thus vested by law, that may not by law be divided. If every portion of power may be taken away, then may the whole be taken away, which is but the aggregate of the parts. In such an event there can be but two results. Either the office of a judge is abolished, or it remains without duties. If abolished, by these means, which are, as we have seen, directly countenanced, there is an end of the discussion. If it remains, by these means, which are, as we have seen, countenanced, the discussion is at an end.

office remains without the judge having any duties to perform. On this point, as if its occurrence had been foreseen by the Constitution, it speaks an explicit language, and at once crushes the absurdity, by declaring that "the judges shall hold their offices during good behaviour, AND shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office."
Thus does the constitution render inseparable the tenure of office with the rendering services, and the rendering services with receiving a compensation. The union is indissoluble. If there are no services, there can be no compensation.
If the alleged officer is divested of duties, which is an equivalent term for services, and of compensation, what remains?
It is no mean confirmation of this reasoning, that congress are made the constitutional judges of the services rendered, by that article of the constitution, which provides that "no money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law." By this provision and the antecedent one requiring service, congress are prohibited from giving a cent to a judge except for his services.
It may be said that this is an indirect way of abolishing the office. Let this for the sake of argument, be granted. It is not denied that the power, indirectly to abolish, by taking away by piece meal the parts which compose the office, until nothing remains, involves the power of direct abolition; which is no more than doing that, by one legislative act, passed at one point of time, which, in the other case, was accomplished by several acts, passed at different times.
Other arguments in favor of the constitutionality of the repealing act are adduced; but this, of itself, is sufficient. In natural science, it has become a standing rule that no more causes shall be assigned than are sufficient to account for particular effects; it would be well if this fundamental rule were applied to moral disquisition. It would probably free it from much of the ambiguity in which it is at present involved; and it would certainly save much time at present unprofitably spent.
It is not a little extraordinary, notwithstanding the use made of the term, that the word "independence," as applicable to the judiciary, is not to be found in the constitution. That wise system, so far from countenancing the independence of any public agents, legislative, executive, or judicial, has provided the most efficient checks to make them all dependent. By declaring that the judge shall hold his office during good behaviour, it has made him independent of the executive; but that circumstance, so far from creating a claim to legislative independence, really produces a necessity in several cases for legislative interference.
This consideration presents a great question, not on the constitutionality of the power exercised by congress, but on its expediency. Many of the most important laws passed by congress require the aid of the judiciary to carry them into effect. We all know that the judges have assumed the power of pronouncing laws unconstitutional; and of refusing to execute them. Such laws may be of vast importance. They may affect the lives and properties of citizens, and may implicate the peace of the nation. Opinion may be divided on them. A great majority of congress, the president, and the people may consider them constitutional; the judge alone may pronounce them unconstitutional. It is as probable, nay more probable that the judges should err on this point, than the legislature, elected for the special purpose of passing laws. Their decision, supported by that of another department of the government, and by the people, greatly multiplies the probabilities on their side. Still the judiciary put their veto upon the laws, and thereby jeopardize life and property, and the peace of the country. Are the legislature, in this case, to submit? Are they to give an absolute control over the laws to the judiciary? For it is apparent that the power of impeachment may be futile, as any number over a third of the senators may frustrate a conviction, and as this number may be found among those senators who do not represent quite one fifth of the people of the United States. If this absolute control is not to be given, then the power of abolishing the office is the only effectual remedy. This absolute authority is opposed to the whole theory of our government, and opposes all responsibility to public opinion.
Grant the legislature to be in error. The opinion they express is that of the people most directly expressed, and if incorrect, the people themselves will experience the evils resulting from it. Unfelt supported by the enlightened and permanent impressions of the people, it will be short lived; it will not be likely to endure for more than two years. But an error of the judges, if paramount, will be of great duration, and will admit of no remedy until the existing judges die and new ones are appointed. Before this shall occur, the liberties of the people may be destroyed.
To bring these remarks to a close, there is one criterion of the constitutionality of the repealing act, which ought, in our government, to be conclusive; one, which could not be urged when the law passed. A lively appeal has been made to public opinion; and the people have been called upon to displace those who supported the measure. In every instance, except one, they have re-elected those who supported it; and in numerous instances they have ejected its opponents. In the congress that passed this act the republicans in the House Representatives were sixty-eight, and the federalists thirty-eight; and in the Senate the republicans were eighteen, and the federalists fourteen. In the present congress the republicans in the House are ninety six, and the federalists thirty-eight; and in the Senate the republicans are twenty five; and the federalists nine. The increase of republican members in the House is twenty-eight; and in the Senate seven; while the federalists have lost five senators, and have not gained a single representative, notwithstanding the increased representation. More than two thirds of both branches, and three fourths of the states are likewise republican. Public opinion, therefore, the highest and the only competent tribunal, in litigated cases, has decided this question, with a strength adequate to effecting, if necessary, a correspondent alteration in the constitution, had that been necessary.
CURIUS.
WASHINGTON CITY,
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 24.
Attempts have been recently made, by letters from, and representations of occurrences at Madrid, to excite the feelings of the public on the issue of a question of great magnitude to the United States. It is said that the king of Spain has refused to ratify the Convention for the indemnification for spoliated property, on several grounds, among which is alleged the illegitimate authority given to the President to erect a port of entry on the Mobile and its waters emptying into the Gulf of Mexico east of that river. Whether it be true that Spain has refused on this, or any other ground, to ratify the Convention, we shall not undertake to say; much less to determine the accuracy of the fact that Mr. Pinkney has demanded his passports and is about returning to the United States; or whether we are on the eve of a war with Spain. We shall only observe that the pictures drawn in some of the Eastern prints appear to us so extravagantly coloured as to lead to a suspicion that they are intended to cover some commercial project. Waving, however, all considerations arising out of these circumstances, as unlikely from the little knowledge respecting them in possession of the public, to afford much important light, we have considered it proper to attempt laying before the public a view of the merits of the interesting question, "What are the boundaries of Louisiana," as acquired by the United States from France by the late treaty of cession. This point, independent of any connection it may have with the ratification of the convention, or with any pending negotiation, is extremely important; and although the discussion of it, at this time, may be premature, as it has been brought into public notice, it appears necessary, to avoid erroneous impressions, to state the prominent facts on which its decision must depend. We shall at present attempt little more than this; our object being to take sure ground, and to exhibit a short and clear view of facts, & to draw those inferences only which immediately flow from them.
In order to exhibit this view the more distinctly, it is necessary to go back to an early period of the colonisation of Louisiana.
In the year 1673, M. Joliet and Marquette, two French Canadians, excited by the information of the Indians, explored and struck the Mississippi, which they descended to the Arkansas. Their representations awakened the curiosity of M. de la Sale, who, in the year 1680, under the permission of the French government, explored the Mississippi. On the lower part of the Illinois he garrisoned a fort called Crevecoeur; and he sent Father Hennepin down the Mississippi until he reached the ocean. In 1682, M. de la Sale and M. Jonti went down the river with sixty men, named the country Louisiana, built a fort in the Chickasaw territory, 60 leagues below the Ohio, by the name of Prudhomme. M. de la Sale then returned to France. The French government, entering with ardour, into his scheme of forming settlements along the St. Lawrence and Mississippi from sea to sea, placed under his direction four vessels, with men and stores. He failed in 1684; but missing the mouth of the Mississippi, landed on the 18th of February in the Bay of St. Bernard. Here he made two successive establishments.
About this time the Chevalier Tonti descended the mouth of the Mississippi, and on ascending the river formed a permanent settlement on the Arkansas. Not long after this period several other
small settlements were made by entering Frenchmen.
In 1689 war commenced between France and Spain, which lasted till 1697, during which period nothing appears to have been done by France to secure her colony. In 1698, M. D' Ierville was despatched as Governor. He established two settlements, one at St. Masfere, which he called St. Dauphin, and the other at Mobile. It may be proper to observe that during the war, in 1696, Spain had taken post at Pensacola.
From these facts it follows that France enjoyed the actual and undisturbed possession of the coast from the Mobile to the Bay of St. Bernard, and from the mouth of the Mississippi to the Illinois, which, together with other territory, comprises what is now called West Florida; but which then, together with the country as far as Canada, went by the common name of Louisiana.
In this condition things stood, when Louis XIV. by letters patent, on the 14th Sept. 1712 granted to M. Crozat, the exclusive commerce of this country for fifteen years. This document is important, as it appears to contain the first formal recognition of the extent of the French possessions. The extracts in point, are as follows:
"LOUIS by the grace of God, King of France and Navarre: To all who shall see these Letters, Greeting. The care we have always had to procure the welfare and advantage of our subjects having induced us, notwithstanding the almost continual wars which we have been obliged to support from the beginning of our reign, 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 Sale, 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 Ryswick to give orders for the 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 new Colony the advantages that might have been expected from thence because the private men, who are concerned in the sea trade were all under engagements with other colonies which they have been obliged to follow: 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 a considerable commerce, so much the more advantageous to our kingdom in that there has hitherto been a necessity of fetching from Foreigners the greatest part of the commodities which may be brought from thence, and because in exchange thereof we need carry thither nothing but commodities of the growth and manufacture of our own kingdom; we have resolved to grant the commerce of the country of Louisiana to the Sieur Anthony Crozat, our Counselor, Secretary of the Household, Crown and Revenues, to whom we entrust the execution of this project. We are the more readily inclined hereunto, because his zeal and the singular knowledge he has acquired in maritime commerce encourages us to hope for as good success as he has hitherto had in the divers and sundry enterprises he has gone upon, and which have procured to our kingdom great quantities of gold and silver in such conjunctures as have rendered them very welcome to us."
"For these reasons, being desirous to shew our favor to him, and to regulate the conditions upon which we mean to grant him the said commerce, after having deliberated this affair in our Council, of our certain knowledge, full power, and Royal authority, We by these Presents, signed by our hand, have appointed and do appoint the said Sieur Crozat solely 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. Lewis, heretofore called Mississippi from the edge of the sea as far as the Illinois, together with the river of St. Philip, heretofore called the Missouris, and St. Jerome, heretofore called Oubache with all the countries, territories, lakes within land, and the rivers which fall directly or indirectly into that part of the river St. Lewis."
"The ARTICLES—1st. 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 go-
vernment of New France, to which it is subordinate; and further that all the lands which we possess from the Illinois be united, so far as occasion require to the general government of New France, and become part thereof, relieving however to ourselves the liberty of enlarging as we shall think fit the extent of the government of the said country of Louisiana."
"This is a solemn declaration that the waters running directly or indirectly into the Mississippi, and the country they embrace, constituted the province of Louisiana. Within these limits France continued with disturbance to extend her settlements till the year 1763. During this period were formed the treaties of Ryswick in 1697, of Utrecht in 1713, and of Radstadt in 1714, to which Spain was a party, and which in none of their provisions invalidate the rights of France."
In 1718, the French took Pensacola from Spain, to whom it was restored at the peace of 1719; since which the Perdido, between Mobile and Pensacola, has been the acknowledged boundary between Louisiana and Florida.
The boundaries of Louisiana, then, as held by France, were the coast and islands from the Perdido to the Rio Norte; up that river to its source; thence to the high lands and round the sources of the Missouri and Mississippi, and their waters to the Alleghany mountains, along those mountains and the high lands surrounding the waters of the Mobile to the head of the Perdido, and down that river to the ocean.
There was, it is true, a collision between the claims and those of the English colonies, whose charters extended from sea to sea; but these interesting claims were adjusted by the treaty of Paris of 1763; by which the Mississippi and Iberville were made the limits of the English possessions on the East, and Louisiana on the West.
Thus far then, that is to the year 1763, there is no doubt that, what is now denominated West Florida, was a part of Louisiana.
To the war which commenced between France and England in 1755, Spain in 1762 became a party on the side of France. England having been so successful as to conquer a considerable portion of the Island of Cuba from Spain, negotiations were entered into for a peace. In these negotiations Great Britain required Florida and that part of Louisiana between the Iberville and the Perdido, in exchange for Cuba. To enable Spain to offer these as an equivalent, France, by a secret treaty dated November 3, 1762 (be the same day on which the preliminary treaty of peace was signed) consented to cede to Spain all Louisiana. By the definitive treaty, signed on the 10th February, 1763, France ceded to England all Louisiana east of the Mississippi, except the Island of New Orleans; which, with the remainder of the province she ceded to Spain. The cession to England, although formally on the part of France (for the treaty between France and Spain was still secret) was substantially made by Spain, who had become the real proprietor of all Louisiana.
England immediately divided her newly acquired possessions into two distinct governments; to one she gave the name of West Florida, which embraced the tract west of the Apalachicola; and to the other, embracing the residue of her possessions, she gave that of East Florida. This is the first that we hear of West Florida, it being a name given by Great Britain to a subdivision of her territory.
At the close of the American war in 1783 Great Britain restored to Spain Florida, and the country east of the Iberville. Spain, on taking possession, continued, with some modification, the English arrangements, placing, however, West Florida under the jurisdiction of the governor of Louisiana, who resided at New Orleans; and since that time this territory, as well in public instruments, and in general conversation, has gone by the names of Louisiana or West Florida, sometimes the one and sometimes the other name being used.
On the 1st of October, 1800, by the treaty of St. Ildefonso, Spain ceded to France the "colony or province of Louisiana, with the same extent that it actually has in the hands of Spain—that it had when France possessed it—and such as it ought to be after the treaties passed subsequently between Spain and other states."
On the 30th of April 1803, France ceded to the United States all the territory which she had thus acquired from Spain.
These are the facts on which a decision is to be made whether the cession by France to the United States does, or does not embrace that portion of country called West Florida?
In the first place, Spain stipulates to recede Louisiana with the same extent that it actually has [in 1800] in the hands of Spain. To determine the import of this stipulation it is only necessary to ascertain the extent of country embraced by the term Louisiana. It has been clearly shown that previous to the cession of France to Spain Louisiana extended to the Perdido. Had anything occurred previously to the date of the treaty of St. Ildefonso, to contract
its limits? If nothing had occurred, the limits must be considered as unaltered. That portion of territory, ceded in 1763 to Great Britain, was receded to Spain in 1783 with the new name of West Florida, given by England. Restored to Spain, although this name was not formally dismissed, the territory which it covers, was re-annexed to the government of Louisiana, and the old arrangements, previous to its cession to England, re-instituted. By these arrangements Louisiana as to its extent, was replaced in the same situation it occupied previous to the cession of a part of it to Great Britain, which was the same with that it held when possessed by France under whose arrangements West Florida formed a part of it.
But as if solicitous to remove all ambiguity, the treaty proceeds to stipulate, in the second place that Louisiana shall be ceded in the same extent it had when France possessed it (that is previously to the year 1763). Now this fact is that France never possessed this province, with any extent which did not include the English province of West Florida. It may have occurred to the framers of the treaty of St. Ildefonso, that doubts might arise as to the meaning of the term "the province of Louisiana," after the cession of a part of it to Great Britain, and its recession to Spain. Hence the propriety of stipulating all such doubts by declaring that the new cession should be in the same extent it had when France possessed it. This effectually set aside all regard to the regulations of England. Supposing, then, the first stipulation to be of doubtful import, the second, so plain as not to admit of any other construction, comes in to remove all doubt. For it is an established principle of construction, that where there are two passages tending to the same end, one of which is doubtful, and the other clear, the last shall predominate. The denial of this construction to the stipulation will be tantamount to saying that it shall have no meaning at all, which in so solemn an instrument as a treaty, and on so important an occasion as the cession of territory, is altogether inadmissible.
In the third place it is stipulated that the cession shall be such as it ought to be after the treaties passed subsequently between Spain and other states—that is, subsequently to the cession by France, which was in the year 1763. Now, subsequently to this was formed the treaty of 1795 between Spain and the United States, by which the former confirmed to the latter a degree of latitude (from 32 to 31 degrees) which she had alleged to be a part of Louisiana unceded to France, and consequently belonging to her.
According to these stipulations, taken together, Spain ceded Louisiana to France exactly as France possessed it previous to the year 1763, with the only exception of a reservation of the rights acknowledged by Spain to attach to the United States, and in this precise shape France thus possessed of Louisiana has ceded it to the United States. If the facts we have stated, and the inferences deduced from them be correct, it follows that the Perdido is the boundary of Louisiana, and consequently that West Florida is a part of the cession to the United States.
The subject may admit of a much wider illustration; and several of the points, which we have but cursorily noticed would doubtless be enforced by many incidents and arguments that might be associated with them; but we wave these for the present, under the persuasion that the concise sketch now offered is sufficient to evince the just pretensions alleged to be entertained by our government. It is possible that some of the facts assumed may not be correct; though we have taken pains to avoid error, and have omitted to introduce all doubtful matter.
New Hampshire Election.
By the return from 189 towns, the votes stand as follows: Federal, 11,000 Republican, 10,908
ERRATA in our last—In the advertisement respecting the dividend declared by the Board of Directors of the Bank of Columbia—Third line, for "this" read "the," and instead of "6 per cent" read "8 per cent."
FURNITURE AT AUCTION.
To be sold at public sale, on Tuesday the 2nd October, adjoining St. Luke's hotel on Capitol hill, a large and complete assortment of Household Furniture, consisting of beds, bedding, tables, chairs, kitchen utensils, &c. &c. Terms of sale will be cash for all sums not exceeding forty dollars, and approved endorsed negotiable notes at 90 days for larger, at either the bank of Washington or Columbia. Sale to begin at ten o'clock. Washington, Sept. 24—4t
THE Copartnership between Nicholas Vof and Charles Glover & Company, is this day dissolved—all those indebted to the said firm are requested to settle with Nicholas Vof, under the firm of CHARLES GLOVER, & Co Bank of Columbia.
A Board of Directors having declared a Dividend for the half year, ending this day, at the rate of 8 per cent. per annum, the same will be paid to the stockholders or their representatives. Wm. WHANN, Cashr.
September 27, 1804—4w