Alexandria daily gazette, commercial & political. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1808-1812, 1811-01-12

I'd, asst has never been utHleG W SpdlH'
I The word "re,rucese," in this treaty, has,
/ / believe, occasionrd more doubt with re-
gard 10 The meaning Of this cesalon, than
any expression contained IN It, but cannot
WHEN 'the subject is properly examin~d,
have the effrct cnntepdcd Tor. 1t is said,
tina. as France crded 10 Spain, in 1762,
Louisiana west of the alississippi, including
the island OF New Orleans the word re-
,rocede must limit the csssion TO what had
!. been previously coded by Franc 70 Spain;
bar ii it be true that the whole Of Louisi-
ana, east ard west of the Mississippi, was
ceds d TO Spain in the year 1861, although
East Louisiana was afterwards ceded by
France with the consent OF SPAN to u.
Britain, the word ,etrocede might with
prupriety he used with reference 10 the o.
riginal grant to Spain in 1854, or if, what
will not be d4sied, The cess;on of East
Louisiana to Great Britain By France, was
at the instance and for the benefit Of Spain
Spain, in 1900, alter she bad aequiredLa
Louisiana, alias Was, Florida, so called by
Great Britain after 1868, could we'll say 70
+
10 me, ard On my account, or at least SO
mucA IS | can ie-grant consistent with the
treaties have since made and this seems
10 be the plain and evident meaning OF the
insuument. IF the parties had neant to
conhne TIE reVocessioE to the. limits Of The
cessioa made by France to Spain, Of Loui-
s'ana west of the Mississippi including the
lsiand OF New Orleans, they would have
nsed the Same description. They would
certainly have stopped after saying the ex-
tent II then had in the hands Of Spair-but
to prevcn; mistake cr nniscoustruction, they
add, that it had when France possessed
II :" and what is still more conclusive Of
thr meaning Of the parties, they go on to
say" and such az it should Be after the
treaties subs, quent'y entered into between
Spain and other states" As Spain had
never entered into any treaty with regard
TO the western boundary Of Louisiana, and
as The only treaties to which the parties
could have alluded, was that of 1888 with
G. Britain, and Of 1895 with the United
States, both relative TO Limits on the east
side Of the Mississippi, il is perfectly clear
that tie contracting parties meantlo com
prehend whatever Ct Louisiana on the east
side Of the Mississippi Spain had title to.
II the construction contend fox is no! al
n,i.ted, 'hgn the latter parts Of the dsscrip-
ton will have no effect, contrary to set
lied principle of law and common sense,
that every part of an instrumsnt shall have
effect, if it can by any reasonable cons,ruc-
ton. TO strengthen the construction Tor
which insist, it may no, be amiss to con.
slider the views of the French government
81 the tn,e this treaty Of ST. l!defonzo was
made. They no doubt acquired this pro-
vince with an intention of holding it, and
it was ar object Of national pride, to regain
as much IS practicable OF the colonies
which had been loss under the old govern
msnt. Besides they could not be igno-
rant Of the importance OF East louisa
ma, now West Florida, to the security Of
New Orleans, and as the practcabilily Of
obtaining 1t al that time from Spain, cannot
be doubted, the presumption is i:resis'a-
bic, that the cession was intended to en-
brace it. had intended to have ascer-
tanned at the department OF state the g. ound
of objection with Spain, to the surrender OF
that country to the United States, but have
not made tie enquiry. do NOT however
think it dificult to account for the conduct
of Spain. My conjecture is, that France
after she had sold Louisiana TO the United
States and received the prices stipulated,
secretly advised no, to surrender it,
having at that time formed the project,
which she is now attempting to execute, OF
acquiring the whole Spanish empire her
;nteres, was therefore idrn t'iled win that
OF Spain, and she no doubt was willing to
unite with Spain, in giving the most limit
ed construction to the cession to the United