The Rhode-Island Republican. [volume] (Newport, R.I.) 1809-1841, 1811-01-30

part Of the provinces of Louisiana as much
40 as the jurisdiction or district Of BstUs
Rouge constitute a part Of West Florida.
What then is the true construction of the
treaties oil ST. lldc fonso, and of April 1908
from whence cur title is derived II an am
biguity exist in grant, tic interpretation
most favourable TO the grantee is 70 be pre-
ierred. Ii WAS The duty Of the gran:or to
have expressed himself in plain and inteiligi-
bic terms. This is the doctrine not OF Coke
only (wbose dicta admit have nothing 10 90
with the question: but OF the code Of univcr-
sal law. Tie doctrine is enti,ied to augmen-
ted force when clause only '-bf the instru-
ment is exhibited, in which clause the ambi-
guily turks, aud the residue Of the instrument
venrion Of 90, 5y which France transferred
Louisiana 10 Spain, Is concealed, and the
whole OF the treaty OF 81. Ildefonso, except a
solitary clause. We are thus deprived of the
.ld which full view OF both OF those instru-
ments would afford. But we have no occa-
sion To resort 10 any rules OF construction,
however reasonable IN themselves, 10 estab-
sh our title. A competent knowledge Of
the facts, connected with the Case, ahd d Cam
did appeal to the treaties, are alone sufficient
10 manifest our right. The negociators of
ihs treaty of 1908 having signed with the
same ceremony Two copies, one In the Eng
ish and the other III the French language, 1t
has been contended, that In the English yer-
sion the term {" cede" has been erroneousy
used inste ID ot - retrocede," which is the
expression in the French COPY. And il is ar
" ed that we aie bound by the phraseoosy OF
the French copy, because, II is declared that
the treaty was agreed to in thai language. 1t
would not he very unfair TO enquire If tnis is
not ike the common Case, IN private lie,
where individuals enter into contract, Of
which each parry retains copy, duly excCu-
ted. In such Case neither has the prefer
eDce. We might well say to France we
will cling by the Eng iish copy, as she could
insist upon an adnsi,ence to the French copy;
and II she urged ignorance OH the part ot M.
Marbois, her negociator, of our language,we
might with equal propriety plead ignorance
on the part OF our negociators of her Ian
Yuage. As this however is disputabie point,
do not avail myself OF it gentlemen shall
have the full benefit OF ,he expressions in the
French copy. According t. this, then, IN re-
citing the treaty oi st. liaeionso, II is declar-
ed by Spain In 1900, that she retrocedes 10
France the colony or province OF Louisiana,
with the same extent that II then mad 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 be-
tween Spsin and otner States. This latter
member oil the description has been sutilci-
entity explained by my colleague.
1t Is said that since France IN 1862 ccded
to Spain only Louisiana West of the Miosis-
sippi, and the Island OF New-Orleans, the re-
PROCESSION comprehended no yaorc-,hst the
retrocessien er'ver fermtni was com menSu-
rate with and hmited by the direct cession
from France TO Spain. II this were true,then
the description, such as Spain held it, that
is in 1900, comprising West Florida, and such
as France possessed it, that is IN 1862, prior
10 the severa, cc,sions, comprising also West
Florida, would be totally inoperative. But
the definition OF the term retrocesslon, con-
tended tor by the other side is denied. II
does not exclude the fundamentally Of Il
third party. 1t means restoration or recon.
veyance oi the thing originally ceded, and SO
the gentleman from Delaware acknowledged.
admit that the thing restored must have
come TO the restoring party from the parry to
whom it is retroceded whether directly or in
directly is wholiy i'm material. In its passage
ii may nave come through a dozen hands.
The retroceding party must claim under and
in virtue Of the right originally possessed by
tle party TO whom the retrocession taxes
place Allow me To put case You own
AL estate called Louisiana. You convey one
moiety OF it 10 the gentleman from Delaware
aud the other 10 me (; ne conveys his mocty
to me, and thus become entitled 10 the
Yhoic. BY suitable instrument reconvey
or retrocede the estate called Louisiana to
you As now hold IL, and as you held it ; what
passes 10 you The whole estate or my
moiety only Let me indulge another
supposition-that the gentleman from Del
aware. after he received from you his mos-
ty, had bestowed a new determination upon
it and called il West Florida-wouid that
circumstance vary the operation OF my act
81 o., y0u The ra~a