The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1811-01-15

error OF Louisiana, residing at New Orlc ans
whereas the governor of East Florida is Dla
ICED wholly without his control, and IS mad
amenable directly tn the governor of tn
II tvannah. And I have been credibly in
formed that all the concessions or grants o
land, made in Wesi Florida, under the au
thority of Spain, run in the name of tn,
government Of Louisiana. You cannot hav,
forgotten that about the period when we tool
possession of New Orleans, under the trea
ty otcession from France the whole coun
try rung with the nefarious speculation.
whlch were alledged to be practising in tina,
city. WITT the connivance if not actual par
oclpation OF the Spanish authorities, by the
procurement OF surrePtitious grants OF land
| particularly in the district of Feiciana.
/ west Flor da. then. not only IS France h ad
heio 1t, but as it was in the hands of Spain
maze par OF the province of Louisiana ;
I, as much so as the Jurisdiction or district %,
Baton Rouge constituted a part of Yves,
Florida.
| What then is the true construction of the
treaties of ST. Ildefonso, and of April. 1908
from whence our title is derived, If an
ambiguity e1sistin a grant. the interpretation
most favorable to the grantee i. to be prefer
red. 1t was the duty of the grantor 10 have
expressed himself in plain and ,ntelligibIe.
terms. This is the doctrine not of Coke only
(whose dicta l admi, have nothing to d
with the Question: but of the code of nni-
Versai law The doctrine is entitled e
augmented force, when a clause only of the
instrument is exhibited, in which clause the
ambiguity turks. & the residue of the instru-
ment is kept back by the grantor. The entire
convention of 1862, by which France trans
tered Louisiana to Spain, is concealed and
the whole OF the treaty of ST. Ildefonsu. ex
cept solitary clause. We are thus cepriv-
ed OF the aid which a full view of both of
those Instruments would afford. But we
nave no occas on to resort to any rules of
construction however reasonable in them
selves. to establish our title. A compet,.nt
knowledge OF the facts, connected with the
Case, and a candid appeal to the tire aties.
Al e I'll me sufficient to mantle our right
L ne neS"clato or he treaty of 1908, hav
Ing signed with the same ceremony two CO.
pies one IN the English and the other in he
french language, it has heen contended
that in the English version the term cede,
mas Deen =rroneousiy used instead of re-
tr 1ce de-, which is the expression i'm the
French copy. And it is argued ha; we
ire bound o' the phraseology of he French
ropy. because, It's declared that the treaty
was agreed to in that language. 1t would
not be very unSair to enquire if this is not Xix
the common case, in private life where in
oiV'duals enter into contract of which
each party Retains copy, duly executed-
In such case neither has The preference -
we nigh as well say to France, we will
cling by the English copy, as she Could ;rI
sst upon an adherence 70 the French COW
and II she urged ignorance on the part OF
Nir Mnroc's. her negociator, of our lam
suaSe, we might with equal proprietv plead
ignorance on the part of our negociators of
her language. AS this however is d,spn
table point, do not avail myself # it pen
elemen shall have the full benefit of ne ~
pressionS In the French copy. According to
this' then, IN recitIng the treaty of 81. Ude
fonso' 1t is declared by Spain in 1900 hat
she retrocedes to France the COLONY or oro
vince ofLouisana with the sam. exr.n,
that 1t then had in the hands of Spain. and
th7t it had when France possessed II and
such as II should be after The treaties snb-
sequently entered int between Spain and
other States. This latter member of tb o
description has been sufficiently explained
by my colleague.
1t Is said that since France in 1862 coded
TO SPAN only Louisiana West of the Missis
sIppi. and the island of New Orleans. the
retrocession comprehended no nore-that
the retr' cess'"n er NJ termini was com
Inensurate With and limited by the direct
Cession rom France to Spain. IF this we've
nv" 'hC ucSCIli)tlon, SuCh as Spain
held it, that is in 1900. comprising West
Florida, and such as France possessed il
that IS IN 1862, prior 10 the several cessions
comprising also West Florida, would be to
tally imperative. But the definition of the
| term rstrocession, commended for BY the o.her
SIDE, is denied. Ii does not exclude the i'm
strumentality of a third party. 1t means
r. storation or reconveyance of the thing orr
glnaiiy coded, and so the gentleman from
Delaware acknowledged
| admit that tn thing Restored mu.t haye
come to the restoring party, from th,. oar' .
TO whom 1t was retroceded whether direct
iy orindirectly, is wholly inmate rial. L. 4
passage II may have come through dozen
hands. The retroceding parry must Claim
under and in virtue CT the right originally
| possessed by the party to whom the retro.
cession takes place. Allow me to mt a
cIse-You own an estate called Louisiana
f'u convey one moiety Of Il 70 the gentleman
rom Delaware, and the other to me he
Conveys MS moety to me, and THUS became
entitled to the whole BY a suitable ins,ru-
ment j reconvey or retrocede the estate
called Louisiana to you, as now bold it
ana as you held it; what passes to you -
ne whole estate or my moiety oniyl Let
me indulge another supposi,ion--that the
gentleman from Delaware, after he received
rom YOU ms noicty, had bestowed a new
denomination upon il and called il Yves, Flo
rlda--wouid that circumstance vary tht
| operation OF my act of relrocession tn YOU
ne case supposed is i'm truth the real or,
| between the u. 3 aud SDain France r.