Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1817-03-11
DOMESTIC.
OUR RELATIONS WITH SPAIN.
OFFICIAL DocuMENrs---[Contimea.
Copy Of letter from TIE Secretary 81 State
to the Cherafier de OniS, dafsd
Department of >tate,
June 10, 1916.

DIX,
had the honor to receive your
letter OF February 22d, soon aiier its date,
and TO communicate il 10 the Presi-
silent.
Anxious as this gov ernmeni has been To
terminate all differences with his catholic
niaiestY, ON cOJdihons OF reciprocal adj
vantage, and with oeHdl honor 10 both
parties (; itwOuld have bsenVcry satisfac
tory In the President 20 haye found tina,
you had been vested with f.'!i power 20 re
gociate and conclude treaty ioI these
purposes.
have the honor now 10 state, illa' NIr.
Ewing. Minister Plenipoientiary of the
o. States TO his catholic majesty, has
been instructed on these important sub
iecis; aud that, DIS the views OF tbs gov
ernment arejust and liberals strong hope
Is entertained tlatyour government, bring
Ing 10 tlie negotiation q similar diSpo~ili-
Oh, will agree 10 such an arrangement as
viii be mutually advantageous and salts
factory 10 both nations.
However agreeable it might he 10 leave
these high coucerns in this train, without
further discussi, here, it is, ncyerlhe
LEST, proper II notice some passages in
your letter of February 22a, nois,iilistan-
ding The clear light in which the subjects
to which they relate, have been placed in
former communications. You intimate
IN your LAKE letter ofAIay 3osh, q desire TO
receive apariicuar answer to that of Fcb-
ruary odd and it is Just that you should
see, that my silence was 'mputdbie 10
the cause only which is above suggest
Cd
l'ou state, that as iiiai portion ofLoui-
siana, which hes eastward pi die hissis-
sippi and tie ibergilc had been ccdcd by
France 10 Great Britain - .s63, and by
Great-Britain &c Spain ~ 1855; il could
not be comprised IN the cesSion of Spain
10 France in 1885, nor OF the latter 10 the
United States III 1893 AMI you draw
this conclusion from the supposed I'M
port ofthe term g retroccssirn, usrd in
the two latter treaties Which y0u saw,
applies 10 that portion only y h,ch spain
had received FROM tiarcs. Aiy nterprc
idiion of these ireaiiss iakIng INFO view
SD much thereof, as rcidiest ihls subject,
is very different ~ 10 The fegln retro
ccssion, il is evident iiai it WAS not the
Intention OF the PHrts+s, fi,'.t az slsoaIioI
haveany elect whaleVey on The extent ~
| the TERRITORY coded. Ne import OF thls
fernI5 : roo ss-sssv, and dire ,ss i:nef was
used IA a manner too casuaf 10 admit
such an inference, even bad there been
nothing else in the treaty between Spain
and France of 1850, to stow that the con-
struction YOU coniend Tor, Is altogether
inconsistent with the manifest intention
of Tic parties The import of tins term
would, in my opinion, be satisfied, II he
whole province lad passed, III the hrst
instance, from France to Great Britain
and been conveyed afterwards by Great
Britain to Spain, and by Spain back Il
gain 10 France. In regard TO France
!. this last conveyance would have been a
reirocession," as, by it, the territory
| would nave been ceded Daci; TO her. Ii
was very natural, therefore, that this term
/ should he used, being Applicable, IN the
| most limited sense iii wlIiC! ii can be ia
! ken, 10 at least nineteen tweniiellis Of fhS
| province, and, ina qualified sensc, to the
whole
Had it hcen intended to exempt an,
| portion OF ihe province i'll the possessi"l
| Of Spaiu, from the operation OF tHC treat,
| ofSt Ildephonso, il would have been cas-
| 10 have done il, and iii manner 10 pre-
| cIudc all doubt of the intention Of the par
ties. II might, for example, have b e
stated, that Spain coded hack to Frame
such part of HE province as France ha
coded TO Spain. 4 stipulation 10 this Ell
feet would have been concise, simple an
very pcrspicuous it would have rcndel
Ell useless aud unnecessary the other pr,
visions OF the article, in regard 70 III
point in discussion, and for any purpoe
! whatever. the first ofihose provisions; {
tiiey might have defined the extent OF III
cessjou by a natural boundary, wliic
would have been equally disiin and 81
, isfactory. Had Spain coded ia France .
! that portion Of LouiSiaua. Wh.ch lies ives
ward of The Mississippi, the iber,lllc an
tie lakes Maurepas and ronchariraii
; no controversy cnnld euer have arisen b'
, fYccn France and Spain, respecting III
eastern limits as 70 what spain had q
: dcd In thai quarter, and what size liad q
faiucn nor could there lave been OF
between ihc United States and Spaln.-
By declining 10 define The DOund1 ITS
Louisiana. eastward. iR some one Oi the
= ob,iO and prosperous mcdc~, IT Is 81
. 10 conclude. TINT II was INTENTIONAL ih
. There was an ol icct in IL; and what ili
G object was, l. sufficiently apparent, fro
= a fair construction of he PROVISIONS
e the article already noticed.
y Bv the treaty. OF ST. lidephonso,
y 1900, the province OF louisiana rs cci
10 France By Spain, wiih the same {
I. tent IL now has in the hands OF Spain,
that it had when France possessed
= and such as It should lie afiert the treat
IS subsequently, entered Inis betwecn Sp'
IN and other STATES" And bv fhr treaty
u 1893, between the L. States and Fran
. this article 1T fire treaty between fra'
's- and Srain, Is inserted verbatim, bV VIII
- the United States are placed preti scly
the same ground ON which France her
stood.
49, five rscur TO the several proviso