plunder and a desire to take advantage of the weak. Appearances, as to these subjects, are certainly against us, and such conduct threatens us with dangers from various quarters. For instance, it is dangerous to seize a territory by arms, under pretence, that we shall give it up, if we find the seizure wrong. It is dangerous to attempt to secure objects of this kind by fomenting insurrec tions; a proceeding which is laid to our charge, not only here, but in East Florida. It is dangerous also, to excite the jealousy of such powers as are jointly interested in watching the temper of our government, particularly on the subject of extension of territory.* Lastly, the plan of accumulating extensive territory is dangerous as regards ourselves, especially when associated with the principle of forming new states beyond our original limits, which are to become members of our General Union.

But we may properly, and with some satisfaction, close our inquiry in this place with some short remarks as to the views and temper pursued in it. First, we have neither touched on the power of Bonaparte to assume Louisiana, nor, when it was once assumed, to sell it again. Next, we have not blamed the purchase of Louisiana, even with an uncertain title, for this purchase gave us a temporary peace, without inconvenience or dishonour, and at a small comparative expense. Thirdly, we pretend to no share in dictating future proceedings. Lastly, we have avoided every harsh insinuation, indelicate expression, or criminating conclusion, being content with solid facts, and plain arguments, expressed in civil language, without regard to party. If there be any, who wish to see considerations of prudence taken into account along with those

Upon consulting our maps, we shall perceive, that the next subject of alarm to the courts of Europe, on account of our movements in Louisiana, will be the mines for precious metals, in Mexico and Peru; mines, which for ages have formed the chief supply of these articles for the whole world. Even in the shape of coin, there is no civilized country, from England to China, from the north pole to the south, where the Spanish dollar is not known. Many reflecting men have long remarked on the good fortune of mankind at having these means of formidable enterprize in the safe keeping of the quiet, harmless Spaniards of modern times; and even the philanthropists, so called, living out of the bounds of the United States, would scarcely vote that these magazines of mischief should be subject to the command of our bold and speculating nation. Every honest American must himself dread the result.

of right and of justice, we reply, that this is a subject into which we shall no further enter than has been done in the preceding paragraph. Prudent men will find enough to reflect upon there ; and to speak to others, might be useless at the present moment, or may be left to other persons.

POSTCRIPT.

There are several short views to be taken of the matters discussed in the foregoing pages, which may claim a place here.

For example: We may treat our subject under the form of an alternative, by considering all the several shapes which the question may be made to take, and adopting that, which seems most reasonable. Thus we may say, that the western parts of West Florida belonged either to France singly, or to Spain singly, or else to both, or else to neither. But the preliminary treaty gave them to England, whether they belonged to France wholly, or in part, or to Spain wholly, or in part, since it gave to England all to the east of the Mississippi belonging to either of them. The critical part of the gift was Spanish, if the cession of Louisiana had taken effect; otherwise it was French. This general gift by each was repeated in the same form, or still more distinctly, by the defintive treaty of 1763, ninety days after Spain had accepted the Louisiana cession. And since each act of transfer was ratified, the conclusion can admit of no doubt. England was quickly put into possession, while France did not even issue the order for putting Spain into possession, till April 21, 1764; and the acts of taking possession, slowly followed.* The above reasoning, we think, holds good,

#

* England was in possession before Oct. 7, 1763, if we are to judge by her proclamation of that date, issued by advice of the privy council, and founded on letters patent for organizing the government of the new colonies. We may at least conclude, that England saw no difficulty, at that date, likely to attend the act of taking possession of East and West Florida, beginning the latter from the Mississippi; and history relates none, except as regarded the Indians of the interior (against whom European governments, as well as our own, have often made expeditions, within the limits of territories long held after the usual manner). But we do not mean to say, that titles cannot pass without possession accompanying them. Such a doctrine would destroy our own claim to Louisiana, acquired by the treaty

supposing either France or Spain concerned in the property in question. But if neither was the proprietor, we then come to the last branch of our dilemma, and may affirm, that by common rules, England had a right to assume it as vacant territory, and to grant it afterwards to Spain, who, therefore, may still be supposed to hold it under the British title which she has found so useful to her. To the above summary mode of treating the question, we shall add a second in the form of a simple statement. We affirm, then, that France was to offer, and Spain to accept, Louisiana, on condition that England should receive a portion of it. As both France and Spain held territory to the eastward of the Mississippi, the form used for the cession to England answered not only for the eastern part of Louisiana (by whichever of them it was held) but also for Florida. Before the preliminary or rough draught of the treaty of 1762-3 was ratified, Spain accepted the cession of Louisiana, and consequently she accepted it with the limits given to it by this draught. The definitive or corrected copy of this treaty, containing the same limitations, (except that they were rendered still more precise) confirmed this consent of Spain to the measPossession was taken in consequence, and was so held by England or by Spain for nearly half a century, till Spain was deprived of it by force. It will be difficult in a disputed case to receive a more simple and satisfactory solution than that here given.

ure.

The impressions to be made by these short representations will be increased by observing, that there are three defects in every defence which has been made publick in support of the conduct of our administration.

First defect. No reason is offered for the cession of Louisiana by France to Spain. This cession was made neither to induce

of April 30, 1803; for the late Major Amos Stoddard tells us, that Lower Louisiana was not surrendered by Spain to Bonaparte's agent, till early in December, 1803. He himself, as he adds, was "the constituted agent of the French republick in Upper Louisiana, and in her name, received possession of that province the 9th day of March, 1804, and the next day transferred it to the United States." See his book, in the preface, and at page 102. His mistake as to the date of the first possession obtained by the English in the Floridas (which he places in 1764) is, in effect, answered by the various facts stated in this note, not to say, that possession may have been taken by England of different parts of the two Floridas successively. He will be evidence, however, for the tardy possession of Louisiana taken by Spain under the act of cession from France.

Spain to enter into the family compact, nor into the war with England, for she had already adopted both, but to provide means for terminuting the war, in the manner stated above. Second defect. No motive can be assigned, but that which we have assigned for the reference to foreign treaties made in the treaty of 1800. Third defect. No attempt has been made to explain, why France allowed Spain to express her cession to England as beginning from the Mississippi, when Spain might have described it as beginning from the Atlantick and going westward, till it met the possessions of France in Louisiana. But, on the supposition, that France had given up Louisiana to Spain, all the jealousy of France as to the claims of Spain towards the Mississippi would of course cease.

These defects are important, and the two first are of an amount to be fatal to any cause, and especially to a cause which is weakly supported by arguments of a positive description.

Notes A. and B. referred to in the preceding remarks, in which farther proofs will appear that New Orleans may be considered as an island formed by the Mississippi.

NOTE A. See p. 9.

West Florida was thus bounded by the proclamation of George III. viz. "To the southward by the Gulf of Mexico (including all islands within six leagues of the coast from the Apalachicola to lake Pontchartrain); to the westward, by the said lake, the lake Maurepas and the river Mississippi; to the northward, by a line drawn due east from that part of the river Mississippi, which lies in 31° N. lat. to the river Apalachicola (or Catahouche); and to the eastward by the said river." See Ann. Register for 1763, p. [209.]

If this copy of the 'proclamation be correct, it appears that in the western boundary the Iberville was considered by England as a leg of the Mississippi; as the Mississippi originally formed the bed of the Iberville, at least in its upper part; and at that part also it wholly supplies it with whatever streams it at any time possesses.

Were we to give any other interpretation to the boundary, as thus proclaimed, it would strike off part of the island of New-Orleans, which would be contrary to design, to treaties, to the proceedings which followed under the proclamation, and to the general good understanding, which continued long after to subsist between Great Britain on one side and France and Spain on the other.

We observe, moreover, in general as to the bounds here given, that England had a right to make them and to vary them, as she pleased, in all directions; the country now possessed by the United States in these quarters being then all her own. But, it will be observed, at the same time, that she adhered to the northern lines marked out in the proclamation, when she came to a settle

D