Relations with Spain.

the boundaries between the possessions of the two Powers, keeping in view the documents exhibited on both sides, and comparing them on the spot with the points to which they refer. The basis I now speak of, as necessary for this demarcation of boundaries, must be sought for precisely in the most marked, leading, and notorious points, which showed the proper direction and extent of the territories of Spain, France, and England in 1763 and 1764, since we cannot seek for them in preceding periods, the possessions of the three Powers in this part of the American continent being then very different from what they have been after those periods, in virtue of public treaties, which are, and ought to be, inviolable.

all the right bank of the Mississippi, and over all composed of Spaniards and Americans, formally the territories and waters from the former to the appointed and authorized by their respective Govright shore of the latter. Even the French them-ernments, can, and ought alone, to examine and fix selves, notwithstanding this famous grant, never ventured to go beyond the certain and well-known limits of their settlement, or violate those of the territory and dominions of the Crown of Spain. It is therefore of no consequence to us if such a blunder was committed by those who penned the said grant at Fontainebleau. If a document of this nature was sufficient to dispossess a nation of its dominions, or of any part of them, what security could there be in any part of the possessions of independent Kingdoms and States? Can there be a mind capable of conceiving that such a paper can fail to be absurd and completely despicable, since it never took effect, has always been resisted as rash and extravagant, and since the incontestable rights of Spain to the property and possession of the said territories existed then, and do still exist? Certainly not.

The situation, therefore, of the three Powers, until 1763, was as follows the Crown of Spain extended its dominion to the east, over the right side of the Mississippi, from its mouth to the mouth of the Missouri; and to the north, over the right side of the latter river, from its mouth to its source. Florida, already contracted by the intrusive establishment of Louisiana, commenced at the river Perdido, and extending eastward towards the river Santa Maria, (St. Mary's,) included the whole peninsula, which extends as far as the twenty-third degree of south latitude. Its northern boundary was not yet fixed. In addition to the colony of Louisiana, such as I have shown it was, and ought then to be, France possessed the territories of Upper and Lower Canada, extending south to a line running from the river Alivamoa, and following the chain of the Alleganies until it struck above Chaleur bay. England extended her possessions to the south of the said line, on the coast of the Atlantic, from the river St. Mary to the river St. Croix, and added to those possessions all the territory lying north of the two Canadas, as far as Hudson's bay and Lake Winnipeg, which had been ceded to her by France, at the peace of 1713.

The Court of France was immediately sensible of the extravagance of that grant, as no farther mention was made of it. On the contrary, when it ceded Louisiana to Spain, in 1764, M. Kerlet, who had been many years Governor of that Province, was ordered to draw up a memoir, containing a description of its proper extent and limits. This memoir, delivered by the Duke of Choiseul, Minister of France, to the Spanish Ambassador at Paris, as a supplement to the act of cession of Louisiana, agrees substantially with that which I have just now pointed out. I would carry this demonstration still farther, if I thought it necessary; and I will do so if you shall have anything to object to it. In the meantime, I now confine myself to declare to you, sir, and to the Government of the United States, in the name of the King, my master, that, although Spain has an original and indisputable right to all the right bank of the Mississippi, His Majesty has resolved to claim this right solely with a view to adhere to the uti possidetis, or state of possession in which the Crown of Spain was when she acquired Louisiana in 1764, and in which that of But France, as you know, sir, was, by the treaty France was at the time she made the cession. of 1763, excluded from the continent of North His Majesty, paying due respect to all such trea- America, with the exception of Louisiana, then ties and conventions as have caused a change in reduced to the island of New Orleans, and to the the state of possession of the two nations in that tract of country to the north of Missouri, and expart of America, religiously confines himself to tending to the British possessions. By that treaty, the express period when Louisiana was circum- she ceded to Eugland both the Canadas and all scribed by the well-known extent and boundaries that part of Louisiana extending over the left with which it passed into the hands of the Uni-side of the Mississippi from its source to the bayou ted States.

Manchac, and thence following the left of the As these boundaries, to the westward of the river Iberville, the lakes Maurepas and PontcharMississippi, although always notorious and ac- train, the coast and islands, to the river Perdido. knowledged, have not been marked out with the Spain ceded, in like manner, Florida to England, formality necessary to avoid doubts and arbitrary such as I have described it; and in the year 1764, pretensions, and as it is only evident that they un- which is the second period when it is necessary doubtedly proceed from the Mexican Gulf, by the to distinguish and fix the basis referred to, she river Mermento, or Mermentayo, and Arroyo Hon-acquired, by cession from France, her remaining do, by drawing a line between Natchitoches and Adaes, which crosses the Red river, and extends towards the Missouri, I have done no more than point out the basis for a line of demarcation; and after we have agreed on this basis, a commission,

portion of old Louisiana. She afterwards acquired what France ceded to the English on the left of the Mississippi, and Florida, also, which she had ceded to them in 1763, as is proved by the treaty of 1783. This treaty, and those of

Relations with Spain.

Those which are comprehended in the first point are acknowledged to be evidently founded on justice; and, to carry them into effect, there The same to the same. exists ever since 1802 a convention stipulated WASHINGTON, January 8, 1818. and signed between Spain and the United States. SIR: Having stated to you in my notes of the You are aware, sir, that the suspension of this 29th of the last, and 5th of the present month, all convention did not originate with His Catholic that I thought proper and necessary on the sub- Majesty's Government. His Majesty is ready ject of boundaries, that we may ascertain, dis- to give full effect to it; and on the basis of that cern, and fix with impartiality, justice, and good convention we can establish and agree on what faith, those which divide, or ought to divide, Lou-may be most just, suitable, and expeditious, to isiana from the Spanish possessions situate to the east and west of that province, acquired from France by the United States, I now proceed to

Relations with Spain.

pose all the injuries and losses respectively suffered since 1801 to the present, because these two points only are distinct in point of time; but, as you are perfectly aware, they are, in all other respects, of a like nature, and therefore of equal rights and justice.

The first and third points are consequently to be acknowledged as substantially forming only one, subject to the examination and decision of the joint commission which is to determine the necessary compensation, in virtue of the convention to be stipulated on the basis of that of

1802.

His Catholic Majesty is disposed to yield to the reclamation of the United States on this point, provided they still insist on it, and to submit it, with the others spoken of, to the investigation and decision of the joint commission. There will, therefore, be no difficulty in also including this point, as far as it relates to injuries really caused by the order of the Intendant of New Orleans, in the convention to be formed and signed, if required by you, it being His Catholic Majesty's desire to give continued proofs to the United States of his frankness, good faith, and condescension. I now proceed to the claim for losses The second point, namely, that of the suspen- and injuries committed on citizens of the United sion of the deposite at New Orleans, might be States by French cruisers and tribunals, in the omitted. You are aware, sir, that it lasted but a capture of American vessels on the coasts of very short time, and in the depth of Winter, when Spain, and their condemnation in Spanish ports, the exportation of the produce of the Western forming the object of the second part of this States was very inconsiderable, and very hazard-question, or that embracing the points of the secous and difficult; that, moreover, the order of the ond class, in the order of the enumeration I have Intendant produced no other inconvenience to adopted. the American citizens than the trifling one of loading in the stream instead of laying their boats along the quay at New Orleans; and that the said order of the Intendant was an arbitrary act, duly disapproved of by His Catholic Majesty, and for which he directed his Minister to give suitable satisfaction to the United States in his royal name. The United States having received it, this affair ought from that time to be considered as terminated.

This part of the question was discussed in a very luminous manner in the notes addressed by His Catholic Majesty's Government to the American Ministers on the 10th of February and 5th of March, 1805; and you are aware that no reply was made on the part of the United States, weakening in the least the force of the principles and the truth of the facts on which the opposition of His Catholic Majesty to a responsibility for those damages and injuries was grounded. You will agree with me, sir, that there is no possibility of deciding, by a general rule, the extent of the responsibility of a nation on whose coasts and ports aggressions have been committed by another against a third party, as it depends in a great degree on the circumstances of the case, and the particular stipulations binding on nations.

On the other hand, you cannot but admit that His Catholic Majesty was not bound to continue the deposite at New Orleans after the termination of the precise period stipulated by the treaty of 1795, by which His Catholic Majesty only agreed to designate another spot for the said deposite, upon the banks of the Mississippi. As this new spot was to be to the satisfaction of the Uni- By the treaty between Spain and the United ted States, it was for them to point out and ask for States, the obligation of Spain is reduced to exit. The suspension ordered by the Intendant, al- ercise its good offices with the offending party, though highly disapproved by the Spanish Gov-and to aid the claims of the party aggrieved. ernment, was in consequence of the scandalous "Each party shall endeavor, (says the treaty,) contraband and abuses by which, under cover of by all means in their power, to protect and dethe deposite, enormous frauds were committed fend all vessels and other effects belonging to the on the royal revenue. By the treaty no provision citizens or subjects of the other, which shall be was made for this case, nor was there any stipu- within the extent of their jurisdiction, by sea or lation relative to the time which was to inter- by land, and shall use all their efforts to recover vene during the removal of the deposite from and cause to be restored to the right owners their New Orleans to another spot on the bank of the vessels and effects, which may have been taken Mississippi, or to the intermediate period between from them within the extent of their said juristhe suspension of the said deposite and the assign-diction, whether they are at war or not with the ing another situation for it.

The Government of Spain was, therefore, not bound to become answerable for the losses and injuries eventually sustained by the short interruption of the deposite, since such obligations could only grow out of the stipulations of that treaty, which does not contain a single word that has the most distant allusion to such an obligation or engagement on the part of His Catholic Majesty.

Notwithstanding these reasons, and various others which I could adduce, to prove that the Government of Spain cannot be bound to make satisfaction for the aforesaid losses and damages, 15th CoN. 2d SESS.-55

Power whose subjects have taken possession of the said effects."

On the part of Spain this has been done; and if her efforts have not produced the desired effect, the fault does not rest with her. Besides, the injuries done by French privateers on the coasts and in the ports of Spain to American citizens have a particular character, which relieves the Government of Spain from all obligation to indemnify them for those losses, even although such obligation had existed. The United States were not at war with France, consequently their recourse, as the aggrieved party, was always open to the Government and tribunals of the aggressor. Spain

Relations with Spain.

was then in alliance with France, and both were the United States resulting from the existing at war with Great Britain. She, therefore, could | not prevent the privateers of her ally from enter ing her ports, as they were not fitted out against the Americans, but against the English. If these privateers, after going on their cruise, committed aggressions on American vessels, on pretence of considering them or their cargoes as English, the Spanish Government could neither foresee nor prevent it. The injuries were already done before it was apprized of them. Neither was it in the Spanish ports where the injury was completed, but in France, by the tribunals of cassation, to which the Americans appealed from the decision of the French Consuls residing in the ports of Spain. It was unquestionably in France that the offence and injury originated, and in France were they consummated. How, then, can indemnification be claimed of Spain for such injuries, and not of France, who was the cause of them, and the Power enabled to compel the aggressors to make due satisfaction, as they were her subjects, and had given the requisite bonds in her courts for their good conduct in their cruises? You cannot but be sensible, sir, that, according to every principle of reason and justice, it would evidently and unquestionably be monstrous to claim these indemnifications of Spain, as the Power existed then, and still does exist, which caused the injuries here treated of.

I would go still further to show that, by no established principle of the law of nations, can Spain be considered responsible for such indemnifications, not even indirectly, in case France should refuse to make them. I would cite, among others, the case in which Sir W. Scott, judge of the High Court of Admiralty of Great Britain, decided that prizes made by a belligerent, and carried into the ports of a Power its ally, and there condemned, are justly and lawfully condemned, according to the law of nations; and that the owners of the property prior to its condemnation have no longer a claim to it after condemnation has taken place. From this and other decisions, it follows that the Government to whose subjects the property condemned belonged has no ground to bring forward complaints or claims against the Government of the country where the prizes were made, because the condemnation is conformable to the law of nations, the sentence pronouncing it is valid, and the authority condemning the property legal, and proceeded according to rule. This doctrine is well known and acknowledged in the United States, as also the principle that, when a nation has employed its good offices, and taken such means as are in its power to procure satisfaction for the offence, and obtain compensation for the injuries committed on its coasts and in its ports, on a friendly or neutral nation, it is bound to nothing more, although its good offices and endeavors may not have produced the desired effect. This principle was applied by Mr. Jefferson, in his letter of the 5th September, 1793, to Mr. George Hammond. It is admitted by the best civilians, and agrees perfectly with the obligations of Spain towards

treaty between the two nations. I mean, however, in case Spain had not been the ally of France at the period, (because, even in that case, the principle I have just indicated would govern,) but, being then the ally of France in the war against Great Britain, she might certainly employ, among the exceptions exempting her from all responsibility in the case here treated of, the principle which served as the ground of Sir W. Scott's decision in the British admiralty court. But I do not consider it necessary further to illustrate these legal objections of the Government of Spain against the claim of your Government for the aforesaid injuries, inasmuch as this capital exception attends it, namely, that satisfaction for those injuries was already made to the United States by France; and, consequently, this affair is, and ought to be, considered as settled and terminated. This essential exception makes it superfluous to produce others, since the obligation spoken of, which was and could only be but one, is thereby evinced to have been extinguished. The French Government has positively declared that, in the special convention concluded between France and the United States, this point was settled; and that the said convention, by which this claim and demand of the United States for due compensation for the losses and damages now spoken of were attended to and redeemed, was ratified in 1802, together with the treaty of cession or sale of Louisiana;" that is to say, that the amount of the said injuries and losses was then estimated and compensated in the price stipulated for Louisiana; so that full compensation was then made to the United States for all that was estimated and agreed on between the French and American Governments as forming the value of the said losses and injuries. The French Ambassador at Madrid gave a verbal assurance to this effect to His Catholic Majesty's Minister of State, and the Minister of Foreign Affairs of France gave a similar assurance to the Spanish Ambassador at Paris. His Catholic Majesty also demanded a formal and categorical answer of the French Government on this point, which formal declaration I here copy; it is thus expressed in the note transmitted by the Minister of France to the Ambassador of His Catholic Majesty:

"BOURBON L'ARCHAMBAULT,

"8th Thermidor, 12th year, (July 27, 1804.) "MONSIEUR L'AMBASSADEUR: I have duly laid before His Imperial Majesty the note which you did me the honor to address to me, dated the 24th July, relative to the discussion which has taken place between the Court of Spain and the Government of the United States. I shall not fail immediately to submit to him the more ample explanations which your excellency announces your intentions of making to me, both verbally and in writing, on this dispute, which seems to threaten the good understanding existing between the United States and your Court. Although I might yet defer giving my opinion to your excel

Relations with Spain.

lency, in consequence of your intention to fur- uneasiness it has charged you to express are nish me with the explanatory statements which somewhat exaggerated, either from the impresyou announce, I do not hesitate to inform you sion they have produced at Madrid, or from the by anticipation that His Imperial Majesty cannot construction, possibly too extensive, which the but be extremely sensible to the uncertain and Minister of the United States to His Catholic uneasy position in which two Powers in amity Majesty may have, perhaps, given to his instrucwith France are placed by this misunderstanding, tions. There is no room to suppose that a Govand that he will certainly do whatever may de-vernment, anxious as that of the United States is pend on him to prevent its coming to an unfor- to establish a general opinion of its wisdom and tunate issue. moderation, would resolve on engaging in an unjust war through motives of ambition; but as the United States attach great importance to the acquisition of a part of Florida suited to their convenience, it is not to be doubted that they will make every effort to obtain it. The ground of this dispute, therefore, rests entirely on this point. Perhaps the Federal Government may have thought that it would tend to promote a ne gotiation for exchange, by exciting a diplomatic quarrel. The wisdom of His Catholic Majesty will certainly suggest to him what is proper to be done on this occasion, with a view to terminate a dispute which, I have no doubt, will incessantly be revived, so long as no change shall take place in the actual relative position of Louisiana and the Floridas; but on this point it is for the wisdom of His Catholic Majesty to decide. The United States are not founded in making any claim on His Majesty. A positive declaration was made to them that Louisiana was delivered to them such, and with the same extent it had when acquired by France; and this declarative will again be made to them as often and as pos tively as His Catholic Majesty will desire it.

"It is several months since I was informed by the Chargé d'Affaires near the Federal Government of the pretensions of that Government relative to a portion of country bordering on Florida, which has become a great object of ambition to the Americans, in relation to the establishment of their revenue system; and it seemed to me, from this information, that it was important that the Federal Government should use all the means in its power to obtain the annexation of this frontier portion of Florida to Louisiana; but the opinion due to the justice and moderation which distinguish the personal character of the President of the United States has not, nor does it yet permit me to think that menaces, provocation, and groundless hostility may be considered by him as the most suitable means to enable the United States to acquire a portion of territory belonging to a foreign Power which suits their convenience.

66

"I request your excellency to receive the assurances of my highest consideration.

CHA. MAU. TALLEYRAND. "To Admiral Travina,

"Ambassador of His Catholic Majesty."

Respecting the second point in dispute, which your excellency does me the honor to speak of in your note, I must say that I had previously no knowledge of it. And, indeed, if I had been informed that His Catholic Majesty's Ministers had carried their condescension for the Government of the United States so far as to engage themselves towards it for indemnifying violations pretended to have been committed by France, I should certainly have received orders from my Government to express the dissatisfaction which You see, sir, that this declaration of the French France must feel on the occasion of so unseemly Government is conclusive, and that the responsia deference; and this dissatisfaction would have bility for losses and injuries caused by French been expressed still more warmly to the Govern- cruisers and tribunals on the coasts and in the ment of the United States than to that of Spain. ports of Spain is removed from the period of that There is every reason to suppose that the Court agreement; and that to renew a claim for what of Spain, by thus yielding to an improper de- has been already paid and satisfied would be exmand, has emboldened the American Govern-acting double reparation for one and the same ment, and determined it to become pressing, and even menacing on this occasion. As for the rest, explanations formerly given to your Court on this point, as well as those which have been authorized to be given to the Government of the United States by the Chargé d'Affaires of His Imperial Majesty, must enable you to judge of the opinion formed by His Majesty on this question, which, having already been the subject of a long negotiation, and of a formal convention between France and the United States, cannot again become a subject of discussion.

injury, and double payment for one and the same debt. Notwithstanding, if the United States have still a claim for the complete fulfilment of this satisfaction and payment, His Catholic Majesty is ready to unite his good offices and earnest requests to this claim of your Government on that of France, in order that she may perform, and cause to be performed, whatever may be justly required in behalf of American citizens who have sustained losses and injuries by her cruisers and tribunals. To this the obligation of Spain, in the present case, is reduced; and His Catholic Ma"Such, Monsieur l'Ambassadeur, are the re-jesty's Government offers immediately to sustain marks that I have thought proper to make in the first instance, in answer to the preliminary note of your excellency. In addition, I must observe that, in my opinion, the demonstrations which appear to me to have given your Government the

all the just pretensions which the Government of the United States may be desirous to form against the Government of France on this point, or to demand of it all such explanations as may be judged necessary to clear up all doubts, if any