When, however, cession of some sort became at last the only alternative to war, and when it was clear that Onis's past conduct and present temper precluded him from successfully concluding the negotiation, the French minister, De Neuville, whose tact and kindliness were recognized by both interests, was called upon to intervene. A compromise was through this agency effected. . . By this treaty, which was at once unanimously ratified by the Senate, the Floridas were supposed to be secured, as well as the disputed southwest boundary settled. Congress, having no doubt of the assent of Spain, passed, just on the eve of its adjournment, acts authorizing the establishing of local governments in the territory so won.

"But the assent of Spain was withheld, as Mr. Adams, with rising impatience and indignation, narrates in his diary and protests against in his correspondence. This refusal to accede to the treaty was caused in part by the dilatory temper of Cevallos, the Spanish prime minister, who was swayed to and fro by two conflicting policies--that of reliev ing his Government from the urgency of the spoliation claims, and that of national pride, swelled with resentment at the menacing tone assumed by the United States military authorities on the Florida border, and at the avowed sympathy of a large part of the population of the United States with the insurgents in the Spanish South American colonies."

"When the treaty for the purchase of Florida had been ratified by the Senate, Mr. Forsyth was sent with it to Spain, and almost at the same time Onis, whose relations to the United States had never, as has been seen, been cordial, returned to join the ministry at Madrid. Ferdinand's change of attitude may be explained by this change in his advisers. He had consented to the Florida negotiation under the impression that while it was pending South American independence would not be recognized. But Onis was convinced that when Florida was ceded South American independence would be recognized; and this conviction was easily communicated to both King and Cortes. Even the concession of Texas, unduly liberal as it was, did not relieve Spanish suspicions, since a filibustering invasion of Texas by adventurers who, though acting in contempt of Federal authorities, yet came from the United States, left the impression that after Florida was obtained by treaty, Texas would have to succumb. Had the Spanish Government, no matter for what motives, promptly disavowed the treaty as made in excess of instructions, the United States would have had no ground for substantial complaint, no matter what might have been the reasons for such disavowal.' But this the Spanish Government

@See § 103, as to Texas.

See, contra, Mr. Adams, Sec. of State, to Mr. Forsyth, Aug. 18, 1819, Am. State Papers, For. Rel. IV. 657-658. Mr. Adams not only maintained that the powers given to the minister were ample, but he also declared, "It is too well known, and they will not dare to deny it, that Mr. Onis' last instructions authorized him to concede much more than he did."

did not do. It is a principle of diplomacy that such disavowal should be prompt; no complaint came from Spain until seven months had passed. The announcement, after that period, that Spain meant to repudiate a bargain which the United States had taken every intermediate step to fulfill, naturally awakened in the minds of Mr. Monroe and of his Cabinet indignation as well as surprise. At first, as we are told in Mr. Adams' contemporaneous diary, the impulse was to occupy Florida, not merely on treaty grounds, but on grounds of necessity, to repel the raids of Indians and Spanish marauders which had their base in Florida. Spain, it was argued, has neither the power nor the will to keep Florida from being the starting ground for these outrages; it is necessary that the United States take the matter in its own hands. So urged Mr. Crawford, whose State (Georgia) was peculiarly exposed to these incursions; so at first felt Mr. Adams, incensed that the treaty with which his fame was identified should be repudiated. Mr. Monroe at the time yielded to this impulse, but after consideration he concluded to recommend, not immediate occupation, but occupation in the future, dependent on the action of Spain.” a

Note of Dr. Wharton, Int. Law Dig., II. § 161a.

The ostensible ground of delay on the part of Spain was a question concerning certain large grants of land in Florida, made by the King of Spain to the Duke of Alagon, the captain of his guards; the Count of Punon Rostro, one of his chamberlains, and Mr. Vargas, treasurer of the household." By Art. VIII. of the treaty it was provided that all grants of land made in the ceded territories, by His Catholic Majesty or his lawful authorities, before Jan. 24, 1818, should be ratified and confirmed; but that all grants made since that day, "when the first proposal, on the part of His Catholic Majesty, for the cession of the Floridas was made," should be null and void. When the treaty was signed, the three grants in question were known in the United States by rumor, and were understood by the negotiators to be included in the annulment; but in order that the question might not be left undetermined, Mr. Forsyth, who was sent as minister to Spain for the purpose of exchanging the ratifications of the treaty, was instructed to present on that occasion a declaration to the effect that the grants were so included. The Spanish Government objected to the declaration as an attempted alteration of the treaty, and returned one of Mr. Forsyth's notes because of the harshness of its language, at the same time saying that the King would send a representative to

a President Monroe's Ann. Message, Dec. 7, 1819. Am. State Papers, For. Rel. IV. 627.

Am. State Papers, For. Rel. IV. 510, 524.

This proposal may be found in Am. State Papers, For. Rel. IV. 464.

d Am. State Papers, For. Rel. IV. 652.

the United States to explain his intentions." France, Great Britain, and Russia all counseled Spain to ratify the treaty, while they urged the United States to pursue a conciliatory course. It was under these circumstances that President Monroe, in his annual message to Congress of Dec. 7, 1819, recommended that the operation of the proposed law to carry the treaty into effect be made contingent, so as to afford "an opportunity for such friendly explanations as may be desired during the present session of Congress."

In January, 1820, the Spanish Government sent out as its plenipotentiary Gen. Don Francisco Dionisio Vives. He arrived in Washington early in April. His instructions were to temporize and delay. Besides repeating the objection to the proposed declaration as to grants, he declared it to be indispensable that the United States should suppress the "scandalous system of piracy" carried on from its ports, put an end to "unlawful armaments," and otherwise cause its territory to be respected, and agree not to form any relations with the revolutionary governments in the Spanish provinces in America." It was soon learned, however, that a revolution had taken place in Spain, and that, the liberal constitution having been restored, the Government had decided to submit the question of the treaty to the Cortes. The United States rejected the conditions proposed by Gen. Vives, and insisted upon the annulment of the grants, but, in view of the change that had taken place in Spain, President Monroe, in a message to the House of May 9, 1820, advised forbearance, and Congress adjourned without authorizing the taking possession of the territory. October

5, 1820, the Cortes in secret session advised the cession of the Floridas, and declared the controverted grants null and void. The Senate reaffirmed the treaty by all but four votes, and on Feb. 22, 1821, the ratifications were exchanged.

The formal act of cession or certificate of transfer of East Florida to the United States was signed July 10, 1821, by Gov. Don José Coppinger, on the part of Spain, and Mr. Robert Butler, commis

a Don Manuel Gonzales Salmon to Mr. Forsyth, Aug. 10, 1819, Am. State Papers, IV. 655-656. See as to the causes of Spain's delay, Mr. Adams, Sec. of State, to Mr. Lowndes, Dec. 21, 1819, Am. State Papers, For. Rel. IV. 674.

Am. State Papers, For. Rel. IV. 627, 676.

C Am. State Papers, For. Rel. IV. 677-678. d Am. Stat. Papers, For. Rel. IV. 676-680.

Am. State Papers, For. Rel. IV. 676.

f Int. Arbitrations, V. 4497; Am. State Papers, For. Rel. IV. 612, 626, 650, 701; V. 127-133; Morse, Life of J. Q. Adams, 125; Schurz, Life of Clay, I. 165. For the purpose of settling land titles under Art. VIII., Congress established a board of three commissioners. For legislation on the subject, see acts of May 8, 1822, 3 Stats. 709; Feb. 28, 1824, 4 Stats. 6; March 3, 1825, id. 102; April 22, 1826, id. 156; Feb. 8, 1827, id. 202; May 22, 1828; id. 284; May 26, 1830, id. 405; Jan. 23, 1832, id. 496. For further correspondence sent to the House Feb. 2, 1824, as to the treaty, see Am. State Papers, For. Rel. V. 263. Correspondence as to the execution of the treaty will be found in the same volume, at page 368.

sioner, on the part of the United States." Aug. 8, 1821, Mr. Butler sent to Gov. Andrew Jackson an inventory of the public property, including fortifications and public edifices, transferred to him, accompanied with plans and charts. Two letters, dated Sept. 1 and Oct. 4, 1821, and relating, respectively, to the, "archives of East Florida" and “maps, charts, etc., of the two Floridas," were addressed by Gov. Jackson to the Department of State, and were received by it, though they seem, with their enclosures, to have been mislaid. Many documents relating to the cession of the Floridas were sent to Congress by President Monroe with his annual message of Dec. 5, 1821." In this message President Monroe mentioned the failure of the Cuban authorities to deliver over archives in their possession relating to the Floridas. In 1832 Mr. Jeremy Robinson, who was sent as commissioner to Havana for the purpose, obtained and sent to the United States a number of such documents, while others, which were in his possession at the time of his death, in 1834, were transmitted to the Department of State by Mr. N. P. Trist, consul at Havana. Among the latter is a list of the “Fincas" which belonged to H. C. M. at St. Augustine at the time of the evacuation.c

"It is the settled doctrine of the judicial department [following that of the executive and legislative departments] of this Government, that the treaty of 1819 ceded no territory west of the river Perdido, but only that east of it: and therefore all grants made by Spain after the United States acquired the country from France, in 1803, are void, if the lands granted lay west of that river; because made on the territory acquired by the treaty of 1803; which extended to the Perdido east. It was thus held in Foster and Elam v. Neilson, 2 Peters, 254, and again in Garcia v. Lee, 12 Peters, 515, and is not now open to controversy in this court. The Spanish Government [however] continued to exercise jurisdiction over the country, including the city of Mobile, for some nine years; the United States not seeing proper to take possession, and Spain refusing to surrender it. . . . The right necessarily incident to the exercise of jurisdiction rendered it proper that permits to settle and improve by cultivation, or to authorize the erection of establishments for mechanical purposes, should be granted. . . . Although the United States disavowed that any right to the soil passed by such concessions, still they were not disregarded as giving no equity to the claimant; on the contrary," they were to a certain extent confirmed by the United States.

Pollard's Lessee v. Files (1844), 2 How. 591, 602, 603. S. P., Pollard's Lessee v.
Hagan, 3 Pet. 212.

For an elaborate discussion of Spanish titles in West Florida, see report of Mr.
Livingston, Sec. of State, to President Jackson, June 12, 1832, MS. Report
Book, Dept. of State.

a Mr. Butler to the Secretary of State, July 13, 1821, MSS, Dept. of State.

Am. State Papers, For. Rel., IV. 740-808.

© Mr. Hunter, 2nd Asst. Sec. of State, to Mr. Dockray, Dec. 6, 1871, 91 MS. Dom. Let. 499.

4. TEXAS.

§ 103.

By the treaty signed at Washington, Feb. 22, 1819, by Mr. John Quincy Adams, Secretary of State, on the part of the Treaty of 1819. United States, and Señor Don Luis de Onis, Spanish minister, on the part of His Catholic Majesty, the territory called Texas, lying between the Rio Grande del Norte, or Rio Bravo, and the river Sabine, a territory long in dispute between France and Spain, and after 1803 between Spain and the United States, was acknowledged to belong to Spain. Subsequently, on the independence of Mexico, it became a part of that country."

"It is now well known that Mr. Adams maintained that the Rio Grande was the true southwestern boundary of the United States, and that he was overruled by a majority of the Cabinet, who concurred with Mr. Crawford in holding that Florida was so essential to the Southeastern States that the movement to obtain it should not be clogged by debatable demands for territory to the southwest. But even then there were statesmen, among whom was Mr. Clay, who, with the interests of the Mississippi Valley at heart, held that Texas was not only far more valuable and important to the United States than Florida, but that Texas already rightfully belonged to the United States. Whether General Jackson, who was appealed to by Mr. Adams for support on this issue, agreed with Mr. Adams as to making the Rio Grande the boundary, has been much disputed. Many years afterwards, when the annexation of Texas was opposed by Mr. Adams as an undue extension of slave territory, he produced his diary to show that General Jackson had advised its surrender by President Monroe. This was emphatically denied by General Jackson. The manuscript correspondence on file in the Department of State leads us to an intermediate position. General Jackson, when the Florida treaty was under consideration, approved of it as affording a settlement greatly to be preferred to a continuance of the border and Indian warfare which then existed on the Florida lines, or to a war with Spain which might be of indefinite duration and cost; and in view of what appeared to him the overwhelming importance of this issue he overlooked that of the southwestern boundary. There is nothing to show that the nature of our title to Texas, surrendered by the Florida treaty, was at that time brought to his notice. To President Monroe, however, the strength of this title was well known, and his voluminous unpublished correspondence shows with what conscientious and patient care it was considered by him. The ultimate annexation of Texas to the United States he seemed to consider as inevitable, and he declared over and

aThat Texas was properly a part of Louisiana, see Adams, History of the United States, II. 7, 256, 294-300; III. 33-34, 40, 69, 80, 78, 139, 310.