Alexandria gazette & daily advertiser. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1817-1822, 1819-02-02

been delivered by Spain and received by
France, as by The subsequent measures Ia
ken by the latter TO obtain the Floridas by
new treaty. Ia the discussion which fol-
lowed at Madrid, Mr.. CevalIos did not tail
to make free and dangerous use of the fol-
ness and frankness of this declaration, aud
rendered necessary, on our part, cores
pendent exercise of another and very OPP
posite quality. The rule of law SO recent
! ly laid down by Mr.. Monroe himself, was
found TO be incorrect; the intention OF the
parties must now be sought only in the in
strumeht which bound them, and no evil
| dence derived from contemporary or suisse.
quent declarations or conduct, (even at
period, when France or Spain alone had any
interest in the question: could be consider
ed as outwelghing thai, derived from what
we called fair and logical construction OF
the terms of the treaty. Ofthe arguments
to which this new doctrine gave rise, a
brief review may be necessary. 1857
| Statement ON the part efihe United States
IL "The intention of The parties is to
govern in all treaties as in other contracts.
1 To ascertain that intention, in the present
| case, it is necessary to take into view the
whole article and construe it so as to give
! to each part its fair and obvious import.
! The article consists of three distinct parts
| or mem bers the first stipulates that the ses-
! sion shall comprise Louisiana in tie same
extent that il actually has in the hands Ot
Spain. Cd. That it had when France pos
sessed it. Sd As ought to be after the trea-
ties subsequently passed between SPAN
and Other powers. The import OF the first
member of the article seems to be clear and
distinct, ami 10 depend on singe iact,
what Louisiana Was in the hanoso SPAN
at lire time this treaty Was made? 10 es-
tablish this fact il seems 10 be necessary on
~ to ascertain what the limits OF the pro-
vince then were by the regulations Of Spain
respecting it, which il is presumed may be
sasiiy done, Has Spain considered Hest
Florida since her treaty WITH Great Britain
in 783, as a part OF Louisiana What is
the extent of the jurisdiction Of the COVER
nor, established at New-Orleans ? Does
it 20 to the river Perdido, or is it confined
to the Island of Orleans, and western bank
of the Mississippi What is he extent Of
the jurisdiction OF the Governor of 81. Au-y
justine Does il comprise East Florida or
both the Floridas? We are informed by
good authorities, that since the treaty of
1883, between Britain and Spain, by Mhich
the latter power became possessed OF the
whole OF Louisiana, and also OF East Fiori-
da, that, she has goyelnedit asst was 60
yened by France, comprising Vest Florida
as part of Louisiana; or in other words,
that the distinction between East ard Vest
Florida, which was created by and only
known to the English, ceased" .3l]
Statement on lie part q SPAN.
1.l"On the first of Oct. 1890, the date
of the treaty of St. Ildetonso) Spain was in
full and legal possession of the country be-
tween the rivers Mississippi and lbberviile
and the river Perdiio. This acquisition
had been made, not from France, nor thro'
her agency. but by tue vaiour of her own
arms, from Great Britain who bad constitu-
ted it, with some adjacent territory, sepa-
rated Province, bestowed upon il the name
OF West Florida, and as such coded il TO bis
Christian Majesty. In the subsequent and
municipal arrangements of Spain, this new
condition was recognized and confirmed,
and consequently, in yielding Louisiana
with the limits il then had in her hands she
neither nominally nor virtually coded any
portion Of West Florida"
''In combating this conclusion, it was
necessary on the part of the United States
20 have shown, that West Florida, after the
year 1893, lost the specific name and sepa-
rate character bestowed upon her by Great
Britain; or in their own language, that "the |
distinction between West and East Florida
had then ceased" Until they do this, their
argument is but the peti!io principii of the !
schools, the mere taking for granted the We
~ point in controversy"
Statement on the part Qr&e United States. :
9.]"The second provision is equally er-
plicittba' il bad when France possessed it."
II is ''known that France had held the pro-
vince to that extent before the treaties of