the most accurate historians of the time, in point of fact and detail, whose work was published as early as 1758, describes the coast as being bounded on the east by the Rio Perdido. In truth, sir, no European nation whatever, except France, ever occupied any portion of West Florida, prior to her cession of it to England, in 1762. The gentlemen on the other side do not, indeed, strongly controvert, if they do not expressly admit, that Louisiana, as held by the French anterior to the cession of it in 1762, extended to the Perdido. The only observation made by the gentleman from Delaware to the contrary, to wit, that the island of New Orleans, being particularly mentioned, could not, for that reason, constitute a part of Louisiana, is susceptible of a very satisfactory answer. That island was excepted out of the grant to England, and was the only part of the province east of the river that was so excepted. It formed in itself one of the most prominent and important objects of the cession to Spain originally, and was transferred to her with the portion of the province west of the Mississippi. It might with equal propriety be urged that St. Augustine is not in East Florida, because St. Augustine is expressly mentioned by Spain in her cession of that province to England. From this view of the subject, I think it results that the province of Louisiana comprised West Florida, previous to the year 1762.

What was done with it at this epoch? By a secret convention of the third of November, of that year, France ceded the country lying west of the Mississippi, and the island of New Orleans, to Spain; and by a cotemporaneous act, the articles preliminary to the definitive treaty of 1763, she transferred West Florida to England. Thus, at the same instant of time, she alienated the whole province. Posterior to this grant, Great Britain, having also acquired from Spain her possessions east of the Mississippi, erected the country into two provinces, East and West Florida. In this state of things it continued until the peace of 1783, when Great Britain, in consequence of the events of the war, surrendered the country to Spain, who, for the first time, came into actual possession of West Florida. Well, sir, how does she dispose of it? She reannexes it to the residue of Louisiana, extends the jurisdiction of that government to it, and subjects the governors, or commandants, of the districts of Baton Rouge, Feliciana, Mobile, and Pensacola, to the authority of the governor of Louisiana, residing at New Orleans; while the governor of East Florida is placed wholly without his control, and is made amenable directly to the governor of the Havannah. Indeed, sir, I have been credibly informed, that all the concessions, or grants of land, made in West Florida, under the authority of Spain, run in the name of the government of Louisiana. You can not have forgotten that, about the period when we took possession of New Orleans, under the treaty of cession from France, the whole country resounded with the nefarious speculations which were alleged to be making in that city with the connivance, if not actual participation, of the Spanish authorities, by the procurement of surreptitious grants of

land, particularly in the district of Feliciana. West Florida, then, not only as France had held it, but as it was in the hands of Spain, made a part of the province of Louisiana; as much so as the jurisdiction or district of Baton Rouge constituted a part of West Florida.

What, then, is the true construction of the treaties of St. Ildefonso, and of April, 1803, from whence our title is derived? If an ambiguity exist in a grant, the interpretation most favorable to the grantee is preferred. It was the duty of the grantor to have expressed himself in plain and intelligible terms. This is the doctrine, not of Coke only (whose dicta I admit have nothing to do with the question), but of the code of universal law. The doctrine is entitled to augmented force, when a clause only of the instrument is exhibited, in which clause the ambiguity lurks, and the residue of the instrument is kept back by the grantor. The entire convention of 1762, by which France transferred Louisiana to Spain, is concealed, and the whole of the treaty of St. Ildefonso, except a solitary clause. We are thus deprived of the aid which a full view of both of those instruments would afford. But we have no occasion to resort to any rules of construction, however reasonable in themselves, to establish our title. A competent knowledge of the facts connected with the case, and a candid appeal to the treaties, are alone sufficient to manifest our right. The negotiators of the treaty of 1803, having signed, with the same ceremony, two copies, one in English and the other in the French language, it has been contended, that in the English version the term 'cede' has been erroneously used instead of retrocede,' which is the expression in the French copy. And it is argued, that we are bound by the phraseology of the French copy, because it is declared that the treaty was agreed to in that language. It would not be very unfair to inquire, if this is not like the common case in private life, where individuals enter into a contract of which each party retains a copy, duly executed. In such case, neither has the preference. We might as well say to France, we will cling by the English copy, as she could insist upon an adherence to the French copy; and if she urged ignorance on the part of Mr. Marbois, her negotiator, of our language, we might with equal propriety plead ignorance, on the part of our negotiators, of her language. As this, however, is a disputable point, I do not avail myself of it; gentlemen shall have the full benefit of the expressions in the French copy. According to this, then, in reciting the treaty of St. Ildefonso, it is declared by Spain, in 1800, that she retrocedes to France, the colony or province of Louisiana, with the same extent which it then had in the hands of Spain, and which it had when France possessed it, and such as it should be after the treaties subsequently entered into between Spain and other states. This latter member of the description has been sufficietly explained by my colleague.

It is said, that since France, in 1782, ceded to Spain only Louisiana west of the Mississippi, and the Island of New Orleans, the retrocession comprehended no more that the retrocession ex vi termini was commensurate

with and limited by the direct cession from France to Spain. If this were true, then the description, such as Spain held it, that is, in 1800, comprising West Florida, and such as France possessed it, that is, in 1762, prior to the several cessions, comprising also West Florida, would be totally inoperative. But the definition of the term retrocession contended for by the other side is denied. It does not exclude the instrumentality of a third party. It means restoration, or reconveyance of a thing originally ceded, and so the gentleman from Delaware acknowledged. I admit that the thing restored must have come to the restoring party from the party to whom it is retroceded; whether directly or indirectly is wholly immaterial. In its passage it may have come through a dozen hands. The retroceding party must claim under and in virtue of the right originally possessed by the party to whom the retrocession takes place. Allow me to put a case. You own an estate called Louisiana. You convey one moiety of it to the gentleman from Delaware, and the other to me; he conveys his moiety to me, and I thus become entitled to the whole. By a suitable instrument I reconvey, or retrocede the estate called Louisiana to you as I now hold it, and as you held it; what passes to you? The whole estate or my moiety only? Let me indulge another supposition, to wit: that the gentleman from Delaware, after he received from you his moiety, bestowed a new denomintion upon it and called it West Florida;-would that circumstance vary the operation of my act of retrocession to you? The case supposed, is, in truth, the real one between the United States and Spain. France, in 1762, transfers Louisiana, west of the Mississippi, to Spain, and at the same time conveys the eastern portion of it, exclusive of New Orleans, to Great Britain. Twenty-one years after, that is, in 1783, Great Britain cedes her part to Spain, who thus becomes possessed of the entire province; one portion by direct cession from France, and the residue by indirect cession. Spain, then, held the whole of Louisiana under France, and in virtue of the title of France. The whole moved or passed from France to her. When, therefore, in this state of things, she says, in the treaty of St. Ildefonso, that she retrocedes the province to France, can a doubt exist that she parts with, and gives back to France the entire colony? To preclude the possibility of such a doubt, she adds, that she restores it, not in a mutilated condition, but in that precise condition in which France and she herself had possessed it.

Having thus shown, as I conceive, a clear right in the United States to West Florida, I proceed to inquire, if the proclamation of the president directing the occupation of propeaty, which is thus fairly acquired by solemn treaty, be an unauthorized measure of war and of legislation, as has been contended?

The act of October, 1803, contains two sections, by one of which the president is authorized to occupy the territories ceded to us by France in the April preceding. The other empowers the president to establish a provisional government there. The first section is unlimited in its dura

tion; the other is restricted to the expiration of the then session of Congress. The act, therefore, of March, 1804, declaring that the previous act of October should continue in force until the first of October, 1804, is applicable to the second and not to the first section, and was intended to continue the provisional government of the president. By the act of 24th February, 1804, for laying duties on goods imported into the ceded territories, the president is empowered, whenever he deems it expedient, to erect the bay and river Mobile, etc., into a separate district, and to establish therein a port of entry and delivery. By this same act the Orleans territory is laid off, and its boundaries are so defined, as to comprehend West Florida. By other acts the president is authorized to remove by force, under certain circumstances, persons settling on, or taking possession of lands ceded to the United States.

These laws furnish a legislative construction of the treaty, corresponding with that given by the executive, and they indisputably vest in this branch of the general government the power to take possession of the country, whenever it might be proper in his discretion. The president has not, therefore, violated the constitution and usurped the war-making power, but he would have violated that provision which requires him to see that the laws are faithfully executed, if he had longer forborne to act. It is urged, that he has assumed powers belonging to Congress, in undertaking to annex the portion of West Florida, between the Mississippi and the Perdido, to the Orleans territory. But Congress, as has been shown, has already made this annexation, the limits of the Orleans territory, as prescribed by Congress, comprehending the country in question. The president, by his proclamation, has not made law, but has merely declared to the people of West Florida, what the law is. This is the office of a proclamation, and it was highly proper that the people of that territory should be thus notified. By the act of occupying the country, the government de facto, whether of Spain, or the revolutionists, ceased to exist; and the laws of the Orleans territory, applicable to the country, by the operation and force of law, attached to it. But this was a state of things which the people might not know, and which every dictate of justice and humanity, therefore, required should be proclaimed. I consider the bill before us merely in the light of a declaratory law.

Never could a more propitious moment present itself for the exercise of the discretionary power placed in the president; and, had he failed to embrace it, he would have been criminally inattentive to the dearest in terests of this country. It can not be too often repeated, that if Cuba on the one hand, and Florida on the other, are in the possession of a foreign maritime power, the immense extent of country belonging to the United States, and watered by streams discharging themselves into the Gulf of Mexico-that is, one third, nay, more than two thirds of the United States, comprehending Louisiana, are placed at the mercy of that power. The possession of Florida is a guaranty absolutely necessary to

the enjoyment of the navigation of those streams. The gentleman from / Delaware anticipates the most direful consequences from the occupation of the country. He supposes a sally from a Spanish garrison upon the American forces, and asks what is to be done? We attempt a peaceful possession of the country to which we are fairly entitled. If the wrongful occupants, under the authority of Spain, assail our troops, I trust they will retrieve the lost honor of the nation, in the case of the Chesapeake. Suppose an attack upon any portion of the American army, within the acknowledged limits of the United States, by a Spanish force? In such event, there would exist but a single honorable and manly course. The gentleman conceives it ungenerous that we should at this moment, when Spain is encompassed and pressed, on all sides, by the immense power of her enemy, occupy West Florida. Shall we sit by, passive spectators, and witness the interesting transactions of that country-transactions which tend, in the most imminent degree, to jeopardize our rights, without attempting to interfere? Are you prepared to see a foreign power seize what belongs to us? 1 have heard, in the most credible manner, that, about the period when the president took his measures in relation to that country, agents of a foreign power were intriguing with the people there, to induce them to come under his dominion; but whether this be the fact or not, it can not be doubted, that if you neglect the present auspicious moment, if you reject the proffered boon, some other nation, profiting by your errors, will seize the occasion to get a fatal footing in your southern frontier. I have no hesitation in saying, that if a parent country will not or can not maintain its authority, in a colony adjacent to us, and there exists in it a state of misrule and disorder, menacing our peace; and if, moreover, such colony, by passing into the hands of any other power, would become dangerous to the integrity of the Union, and manifestly tend to the subversion of our laws, we have a right, upon the eternal principles of self-preservation, to lay hold upon it. This principle alone, independent of any title, would warrant our occupation of West Florida. But it is not necessary to resort to it-our title being, in my judgment, incontestably good. We are told of the vengeance of resuscitated Spain. If Spain, under any modification of her government, choose to make war upon us, for the act under consideration, the nation, I have no doubt, will be willing to embark in such a contest. But the gentleman reminds us that Great Britain, the ally of Spain, may be obliged, by her connection with that country, to take part with her against us, and to consider this measure of the president as justifying an appeal to arms. Sir, is the time never to arrive when we may manage our own affairs without the fear of insulting his Britannic majesty? Is the rod of British power to be forever suspended over our heads? Does Congress put on an embargo to shelter our rightful commerce against the piratical depredations committed upon it on the ocean? We are immediately warned of the indignation of offended England. Is a law of non-intercourse proposed? The whole

V.