Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1818-04-21

| REJECTS all doubt, SO recurrence 10 another
tact, equally notorious, replies as decsiNcly 10
| ,osr appeal 10 the treaty of 9th February,
IT'S, between the |. States and France. You
say, thar in the year 1870. France C0Nld not
have acQ3ired any territory cast OF The hlissiS-
sippi, without hO'S;tOaS tioidtl0H that ttea-
~. forgetting that thSt aiy, and al its obi-
J cations mon France, had, before they ear 1900,
! ceased TO exist.
| Tie fact. that the ceSSions Of the two parts
81 Louisiana TO pam aud England, we're made
On the same day, MAY serve nO less - reply 10
| all the verbal cTltCisniSO giaNelN urged By MIR.
! CeNdilOS, aud nov repeated by You. ON the
force OF Tire terms retrcecde aud ,SSioa. Us
ed in tie neet> IT 81. ildc, honSo The plain
! import Of the words is neither more nor less
! thar giving bach. restoring. Ii does not, and
! catuot he made 20 lraplN, iuat both The parties
/ Go the restoration must, OF necessity, be the
| same as both ihe parties To tue grant. They
uniN iuiplX ihaI thu object aud the party grant
/ ng, critic PARTY receiving 't, aS restOred, are
ti.e sane. 70 use ADMINISTRATION from the con-
| Germs ct individual i,te-SWppUSe 4, Nv two
| separate deeds. giants haifau acre of lard TO
! u aud he othet ha.t 70 X. Il. by subsequent
purchase, obtains the half acre granted Ia G.
sud then rr-eTauts the vtUle acre back 10 A
! ny whatever dciloihin.tioi he two halt acres
! MAY have been called, the interval between
| the fist grant AMI the restoration, y niglt.
! with the most pesiect propiety be saint 10
/ EItrcCede the whole and IA the act OF re-
stoISiiou. tieacre should be called bv tile same
nanie, and expressly described as having. the
| same extent d. when IL had been first owned
| by \, wlth what shadow otiu,tce could b pre-
tend ia2t has re .raut WAS OUiy OF tie ati acre
| lie had first received from because the other
| half acre had ia the interval, been called by
another name, and Tor some lime owued Dy -
nuther persona That tie term retrocesSios Is in
! common use, IN tins Semse, take The following
| passage from the English Translation OF Alec
By treaty in 1888, Great Britain rcfrscc-
| ded TO SPAN AL the territory which 10Th
| Spain and France had coded TO Great Britain
! in 1865"
| There would then be nothing in the terms
rrtrocede or retrOceSsion, ,,nicb oulJ limit the
| territories restored by Span to,he Doundaries
| under which she dad first received part Of them
| from France; even II tir yor,.inal crssions of
| the pyo parts had been ns.ie at different times
and even II those words a. al tke se!Br g,fep,
!thgd cieH 81 the haHds Of frdRce, had not been
inserted IN the treaty O.. 1T. Iidephou$o. But
| %tea u Is considered that The ceSsioas by
| France Of the TWO lari$ of Louisiana were
| made TO S, am and ga Epgiand on the same
| day, when We know that the cession of the part
| ce1ed 10 England, had heen made tor The ben
| cii OF SPAN. as II " rs AZ equivalent tor the
| restoration siy lnslard of the island of Cuba
| Ia Spain, and Wheu NCreek for anV possible
! Gaming To the words iRicrriu, 10 lie extent
ot 1ou'> idna, Whcn before owned bV Fran e.
10 cut minds, sir, the cORClnSion i irresistible
| tn"t The terms retsocede and retrocesSon can
! nave, IN thIs case, no other meaning than that
| f'r Nilch we contend, a.d that they inc,ude
! tnc giving baci, 10 France the viote Of Lousi-
| ana, Which had ever bClOn. cd TO France, aud
! treaty OF 81. lidepi.onSo, IN The puwerof Spain
| 10 restore.
~ the wordsin the ll,.d article of lac trea-
| ~ II 81. iidephoaso, adopted IN The treaty of
ceSsiOn OF 1905 20 the United States Spain re
tiocedes to france the cOtpHy pJ0cil4ee of
louisiana, with tie same tNteuttEgt IL now
mas In The hands OF pam, aud that II had " hen
France possessed 1t, aud such as il ought 20 be
alter the treaties subsequently entered INTO
between SPAN aiid other states" A the ne
COLLATION. of AianlEcHin 1903, your aliegedirea-
y oi l'Oi never occurred 10 the imagination of
VI. CeVaiIoS, a. one OF these Subsequent trea
Ties for, after c!t!n. tins clause OF the article
ne says, in has letter TO MessrS. Pinckney aud
Monroe, OF The ZljL February, 1905, = the trea-
ties here alluded TO are not, nor en- he others
than those OF 1903, hetweew Spain aud EnglaIiI,
and it55. between Spain and lie u. States"
he american ministers, iB their anSS er Of Sth
March, 1905, explicitly agree ~ opinion with
MI CeVallOS OF This point; aud VOur iutilna
ton o. a treaty Ofl7GI, 10 which you suppose
The clause lso 10 apply, Is IS Incompatible win
the pietensions OF your own government IN
loO5, as with those of the United States al tins
day.
10 account for the peculiar phraseoInev MS
ed IN this descriptions, inserted III The thir ar
ticie OF the Treaty OF st. Hide PhOnAc we must
advert TO the peculiar situation of the territory
to oe conveyed, and TO WIN. a.sst have been
the intention Of the parties. IL was ii ebony
or province 10 DE restored; and therefore the
OBJECT OF france could have beeUuO other than
10 obtain the restoration of the Whole original
COlub!, SOAR as tt was III me power OF Spain
10 restore 1t. But there was part of the OH
ginal colony which had been coded Dy France
to England, which had IN process Of time ne
come part OF the United StaieS, ana which,
not beng then i'll the hands Of pain she could
not restore. There was another part which
had been ceded Is FraucP directly 10 SDain
which still remained ~ hel hands but Subject
10 certain conditions stipulated by Spain IN a
treaty with the United States; and tlerc was
third part which France had ceded TO Eogiand
III lI6z, bat which had afterwards fallen INTO
The hands Of spain, and which she WAS equally
competent 10 restore, as ifithad been coded by
France 80 herself . the boundaries Of This
colony or province never had been prPrisely
defined, and bad been fam as first SCI tlement
ii snhject OF dispute between France ai!tl-, pain,
the parties had no means of recurring TO any
ternler GehGItiOn OF boundaries, 10 carry their
inteHuou INTO effect, as they had no gsn.rraDhi-
cal lines er landmarks to which they c0nhl re.
cur, they assumed characterization from circu IL.
Stances Incident ! TO the present and past time
Il the Intention had been To- cede back the pro
C2Rce, ONLY with the extent u actually had III
the hands Ut ) ain tie parties wouid hayesaid
so, and omitted the Other clause, y hicl in that
case, would have been cot merely super ilUOus
but tending TO pefpeX Tat when would have
beeu clear without ~. IL 10 adj bccufBiCnded
that Spain should restore TO France only v hat
she had received from France, nothing could
have been mere clear and easy than 10 have
sad so but then, the reference 60 the eXtent
VI the colony, when France POSSESSED H.. would
haze been not merely absurd, bnt confradic.
tory 20 that intention. The very use of both
the terms, prOctnce OF COiOHy shows that tie
parties were looking TO the original state as
well as 10 the actual condition OF tie territory
TO be restored. Louisiana, the actual spanish
pr0riHce, was one thing, and Louisiana the
original French cOtDHy, was another the adap-
ton Ut both the words, Is Of itself strong pre-
mptiOn, ibat the intention was to restore
not only The actual province, bat so much OF
any OTHER province, as was then in the hands
OF Spa p, and had formed part OF the original