The Spaniards are ent.i.tled to claim for their countryman Hernando de Soto and his followers the merit of having first discovered the River Mississippi. About the same time that Vasquez de Coronado was despatched to explore the district which is supposed to correspond to the modern province of Sonora, in search of the great city of Cibola and the rich country of Quivira, the Viceroy Mendoza granted a commission to Soto for the discovery of Florida, which at that time was the general name for the countries on the northern sh.o.r.es of the Gulf of Mexico. According to the Spanish accounts, Soto and his followers succeeded, in 1542, in marching across the continent from Apalache, to the great river (Mississippi,) and thence penetrated as far west as the Rio Negro. Soto himself, however, died at Guachoya, and his companions, having committed the body of their leader in a hollow tree to the river, descended the Mississippi in boats, and after a series of conflicts with the natives, succeeded in reaching the Mexican Gulf, under the guidance of Luis de Moscoso and Juan de Anasco. Thence they continued their voyage westward along the coast until they arrived at Panuco, which was the northernmost part of New Spain, being within a few miles of the sea, a little higher up the river than the modern Tampico. (Herrera, Decade iv., ch. vii. and x., British and Foreign State Papers, 1817-18, p. 427.)
The Spaniards, however, do not appear to have availed themselves of this discovery of the mouth of the Mississippi for the purpose of settlement.
On the other hand, the northern branches of the river appear to have been first explored by subjects of other powers than Spain, in the latter portion of the seventeenth century. Mr. Greenhow (p. 277) has inserted an extract from Jefferys" History of the French Dominions in America, published in 1754, to the effect that "the Mississippi, the chief of all the rivers of Louisiana, which it divides almost into two equal parts, was discovered by Colonel Wood, who spent almost ten years, or from 1654 to 1664, in searching its source, as also by Captain Bolt, in 1670." No further particulars are given by Jefferys, but it may be observed that both the above persons were British subjects.
In the year 1678, the French Government determined upon an expedition to explore the western parts of New France, and to discover, if possible, a road to penetrate to the Spanish possessions in Mexico. In consequence, Louis XIV. issued letters patent to the Sieur de la Salle, to authorise him to execute this enterprise, which he commenced towards the end of the following year. It was not, however, till February 1682, that he reached the river Colbert or Mississippi, by following the course of the Illinois River. His voyage down the Mississippi was accomplished by the 7th of April following, and on the 9th, La Salle took formal possession, in the name of the French monarch, "of the country of Louisiana, from the mouth of the great river St. Louis, otherwise called Ohio, on the eastern side, and also above the River Colbert or Mississippi, and the rivers which discharge themselves into it, from its source in the country of the Kious or Nadiouessious, as far as its mouth at the sea, or Gulf of Mexico;" and "upon the a.s.surance which they had received from all the natives through whose country they had pa.s.sed, that they were the first Europeans who had descended or ascended the said river Colbert, they hereby protested against all those who may in future undertake to invade any or all of these countries, people, or lands above described, to the prejudice of the right of his Majesty, acquired by the consent of the nations herein named."
The proces-verbal drawn up on this occasion, of which the above is an extract, which is preserved in the archives of the Department of the Marine at Paris, was first published by Mr. Jared Sparks of Boston, the well-known author of the Life of Washington, and may be found most readily in Mr. Falconer"s able treatise on the discovery of the Mississippi. La Salle, on his return to France, obtained authority to form a colony near the mouth of the Mississippi, but in his voyage outwards he miscalculated his course, and reached the coast far to the westward of that river. Here indeed, in 1685, he established a settlement in the Bay of St. Bernard, called by him the Bay of St. Louis, which is supposed by some to have been Matagorda Bay, by others to have been the Bay of Espiritu Santo. This colony met with great disasters; but the French Government did not abandon its object, and in 1698 we find that the ill.u.s.trious Canadian d"Iberville entered the Mississippi, and established a settlement at about one hundred leagues from its mouth. Before 1710, many French settlements had been made on the banks of the great river, but it was not until 1712 that a royal charter was granted by the French King to Antoine Crozat, which is the earliest doc.u.ment relied upon to establish the limits of Louisiana, and which Mr. Greenhow has inserted in his work, (p. 277.)
"Nous avons par ces presentes, signes de notre main, etabli, et etablissons ledit Sieur Crozat, pour faire seul le commerce dans toutes les terres par nous possedees, et bornees par le Nouveau Mexique, et par celles des Anglais de la Caroline, tous les etabliss.e.m.e.ns, forts, havres, rivieres, et princ.i.p.alement le port et havre de l"isle Dauphine, appellee autrefois de Ma.s.sacre, le fleuve St. Louis, autrefois appellee Mississippy, depuis le bord de la mer jusqu"aux Illinois, ensemble les rivieres St. Philippe, autrefois appellee des Missourys, et St. Hierosme, autrefois appellee Ouabache, avec tous les pays, contrees, lacs dans les terres, et les rivieres qui tombent directement ou indirectement dans cette partie du fleuve St. Louis. Voulons que les dites terres, contrees, fleuves, rivieres et isles, soient et demeurent compris sous le nom du gouvernement de la Louisiane, qui sera dependant du gouvernement general de la Nouvelle France, auquel il demeurera subordonne; et voulons en outre que _toutes les terres que nous possedons, depuis les Illinois, soient reunis_, en tant que besoin est, _au gouvernement general de la Nouvelle France_, et en fa.s.sent partie: nous reservant neanmoins d"augmenter, si nous le jugeons a-propos, l"etendue du gouvernement du _dit pays de Louisiane_."
Louisiana, it will be thus seen, according to this authoritative doc.u.ment of the French crown, was the country watered by the Mississippi, and its tributary streams from the sea-sh.o.r.e to the Illinois: such was the limitation affixed to the province by the French themselves; and, by the same public instrument, all the rest of the French possessions were united under the government of New France. It is true that the Illinois was subsequently annexed to Louisiana by a royal decree in 1717, after Crozat had relinquished his charter, and the whole region was granted to Law"s Mississippi Company; but the Illinois were still spoken of as the Illinois, and the district was not merged in Louisiana, though it was annexed to that province, to give the company access to Canada, in which the monopoly of the beaver-trade had been granted to them. It has been already observed, that the limits of the Hudson"s Bay territories and French Canada were settled by the peace of Utrecht, in 1713: one great object of that treaty was to provide against the commercial disputes of the subjects of the two crowns, which had led to a series of conflicts on the sh.o.r.es of Hudson"s Bay; it was in furtherance of this object that the fur-trade of Canada was now diverted from the St. Lawrence to the Mississippi, by this grant of the monopoly of the beaver-trade to the Compagnie d"Occident, and the annexation of the Illinois country to Louisiana.
Upon the surrender of Canada to the British arms, considerable discussion arose as to the respective limits of the provinces of Canada and Louisiana. The British Government insisted, as already stated, p. 150, on a line which would take in the river Ouabache, as far as its junction with the Ohio; and from thence along the Ohio to the Mississippi, the country to the south of the Ohio being at this time either British possessions, as part of Virginia, or occupied by Indian tribes. In the course of these negotiations, the Marquis de Vaudreuil, who signed the surrender, published his own account of what pa.s.sed between Sir J. Amherst and himself, of which he considered the English account to be incorrect. "On the officer showing me a map which he had in his hand, I told him the limits were not just, and verbally mentioned others, extending Louisiana on one side to the carrying-place of the Miamis, _which is the height of the lands whose rivers run in the Ouabache_; and on the other to _the head of the river of the Illinois_." [Annual Register, 1761, p. 268.] Even thus, then, all to the north of the Illinois was admitted to be Canada.
However, the French Government, in its memorial of the 9th September, 1761, "agreed to cede Canada in the most ample manner, and to admit the line on which England rested her demand, as, without doubt, the most extensive bound which can be given to the cession." In accordance with this we find that, by the seventh article of the Treaty of Paris, the French possessions were declared to be thenceforth limited by the mid-channel of the Mississippi, from its source to the River Iberville.
The Treaty of Paris, however, has not furnished the only occasion upon which intricate discussions have arisen respecting the limits of Louisiana. By a secret treaty with Spain, made in 1762, but not signed till 1764, France ceded to her all the country known under the name of Louisiana. This transfer, however, was not promulgated till 1765, two years after the Treaty of Paris had been signed by France, Spain, and Great Britain; nor did the Spaniards obtain possession of the country till 1769. From that time Spain retained it till 1800, when she retroceded it to France by the secret Treaty of San Ildefonso, in exchange for an augmentation of the territories of the Duke of Parma in Italy. France, having thus been reinstated in possession of her ancient province, found she had unexpectedly given alarm and umbrage to the United States of America, and, in order to detach them from their disposition to unite with Great Britain, ceded it in full to the United States, in 1803, for the sum of sixty thousand francs. This led to a protracted negotiation between the United States and Spain, as to the limits of Louisiana, on the side both of Florida and Mexico respectively; which, though commenced in 1805, was not concluded till 1818. The claims of the two states are discussed in full, in a correspondence which may be found in the British and Foreign State Papers for 1817-18, and 1819-20.
The United States, in the course of these discussions, insisted upon the limits marked out in the letters patent which Louis XIV. had granted to Crozat, _on the authority of the discovery made, and of the possession taken_, by Father Hennepin in 1680, and by La Salle in 1682. Thus the validity of the t.i.tle conveyed by the letters patent was sought to be grounded by the United States upon principles recognised by the law of nations. Charters, by their own intrinsic force, can only bind those who are subject to the authority from which they emanate: against the subjects of other states they can only avail on the supposition that the t.i.tle of the grantor is valid by the law of nations. Thus the charter given by Charles II. to the Hudson"s Bay Company, granted to them, _by virtue of the discoveries_ made in those parts, all the lands, &c., within the entrance of the straits commonly called Hudson"s Straits, "which _are not now actually possessed_ by any of our subjects, or _by the subjects of any other Christian Prince or State_;" and thus we find in the negotiations antecedent to the Treaty of Utrecht, it was expressly urged in support of the British t.i.tle to the territories of Hudson"s Bay, "that Mons.
Frontenac, then Governor of Canada, did not complain of any pretended injury done to France by the said Company"s settling a trade and building of forts at the bottom of Hudson"s Bay, nor made pretensions to any right of France to that bay, till long after that time." [Anderson"s History of Commerce, A. D. 1670, vol. ii., p. 516.] In other words, the t.i.tle which this charter created was good against other subjects of the British Crown, by virtue of the charter itself; but its validity against other nations rested on the principle that the country was discovered by British subjects, and, at the time of their settlement, was not occupied by the subjects of any other Christian prince or state; and in respect to any special claim on the part of France, the non-interference of the French governor was successfully urged against that Power as conclusive of her acquiescence.
That the province of Louisiana did not at any time extend _further north_ than the source of the Mississippi, either if we regard the evidence of public instruments in the form of charters and treaties, or of historical facts, is most a.s.suredly beyond the reach of argument. What, however, were the _western_ limits of the province, has not been so authoritatively determined. Mr. Greenhow, (p. 283,) after examining this question, concludes thus:--"In the absence of more direct light on the subject from history, we are forced to regard the boundaries indicated by nature--namely, the highlands separating the waters of the Mississippi from those flowing into the Pacific or Californian gulf--as the _true western boundaries_ of the Louisiana ceded by France to Spain in 1762, and retroceded to France in 1800, and transferred to the United States by France in 1803: but then it must also be admitted, for the same as well as for another and stronger reason, that the British possessions further north were bounded on the coast by the same chain of highlands; for the charter of the Hudson"s Bay Company, on which the right to those possessions was founded and maintained, expressly included only the countries traversed by the streams emptying themselves into Hudson"s Bay."
Charters may certainly be appealed to as evidence against the parties which have granted them, that on their own admission they do not extend their claim beyond the limits of them, and Mr. Greenhow is perfectly justified in confining the limits of Rupert"s Land, for such seems to have been the name recognised in the charter, to the plantation in Hudson"s Bay, and the countries traversed by the streams emptying themselves into the Bay; but the right to those possessions, as against France, was not founded upon the charter, but generally upon recognised principles of international law, and especially upon the Treaty of Utrecht. So in respect to the northern limit of Louisiana, Crozat"s grant, or the grant to Law"s Mississippi Company, might be alleged against France, to show that its limits did not extend further north, on the right bank of the Mississippi, than the Illinois. On the other hand, the Treaty of Paris might be appealed to, in order to show against Great Britain, that it did extend on the right bank of the Mississippi as far north as the sources of that river. Again, in respect to the western boundary of Louisiana, Crozat"s grant might be cited against France, to show that the province of Louisiana did not extend further westward than the confines of New Mexico.
What, however, was the boundary of New Mexico, does not seem to have been determined by any treaty between France and Spain. France seems, indeed, from the words of Crozat"s grant, to have considered herself exclusively ent.i.tled to the Missouri river on the right bank, and to the Ohio on the left. The claims, however, of Great Britain, clashed with her on the banks of the Ohio, as remarked by Mr. Calhoun in his letter to Mr. Packenham of Sept. 3, 1844. In an a.n.a.logous manner the Spanish t.i.tle conflicted with the French t.i.tle on the banks of the Missouri; for we find that, in the negotiations antecedent to the Treaty of Washington, in 1819, the Spanish commissioner maintained, that after Santa Fe, the capital of New Mexico, was built, Spain considered all the territory lying to the east and north of New Mexico, so far as the Mississippi and Missouri, to be her property.
[British and Foreign State Papers, 1817-18, p. 438.] The United States, indeed, on succeeding to the French t.i.tle, declined to admit that the Spanish frontier ever extended so far to the north-east as was alleged; on the other hand, the letter of President Jefferson, of August 1803, shows that they considered their own claims to be limited by "the high lands on the western side of the Mississippi, enclosing all its waters, [the Missouri of course."]
By the Treaty of Utrecht, the British possessions to the north-west of Canada were acknowledged to extend to the head-waters of the rivers emptying themselves into the bay of Hudson: by the Treaty of Paris, they were united to the British possessions on the Atlantic by the cession of Canada and all her dependencies; and France contracted her dominions within the right bank of the Mississippi. That France did not retain any territory after this treaty to the north-west of the sources of the Mississippi, will be obvious, when it is kept in mind that the sources of the Mississippi are in 47 35", whilst the sources of the Red River, which flows through Lake Winnipeg, and ultimately finds its way by the Nelson River into the bay of Hudson, are in Lake Travers, in about 45 40".
Some writers are disposed to consider that the limits of New France extended westwardly across the entire continent to the Pacific Ocean, but no authoritative doc.u.ment has been cited to show that the French Crown ever claimed such an extent of unknown territory, or that its claim was ever admitted. Escarbot"s description, in 1617, of New France, which, however, is of no authority, embraces within its limits almost the entire continent of North America, as may be seen from the extract from his "Histoire de la Nouvelle France," which M. Duflot de Mofras gives: "Ainsi nostre Nouvelle France a pour limites du cote d"ouest les terres jusqu"a la mer dite Pacifique en deca du tropique du Cancer; au midi, les cotes de la mer Atlantique du cote de Cube et de l"Isle Hespagnole; au levant, la mer du Nord qui baigne la Nouvelle France; et au septentrion, cette terre qui est dite inconnue, vers la mer glacee jusqu"au pole arctique."
The same author cites a map of the year 1757, as confirmatory of this view, in which a great river is exhibited in 45, on the north-west coast of America, the direction of which is exactly that of the Columbia; but Mr. Greenhow, in the new edition of his work, p. 159, states, that this map was drawn and presented by the French commissaries appointed under the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle in 1748, to expose the extravagant pretensions of the British in North America, and that it does not contain the word _Canada_, or _Nouvelle France_, or any other sign of French dominion, the whole division of the continent, between 48 and 31 north lat.i.tude, being represented by strong lines and express notes, as included in the limits of the British provinces; nor does it show any large river falling into the Pacific north of the peninsula of California, nor any river entering that ocean north of 36. A map perhaps better authenticated than this may be referred to in the History of the French Dominions in America, by Jefferys, the geographer to the King of England, in 1760, which does not, indeed, extend New France to the Pacific: on the contrary, whilst it exhibits the River of the West flowing in a course not unlike that of the Columbia, it does not include the Pacific Ocean at all in its limits, but leaves the west coast of the continent in its real obscurity.
Maps, however, are but pictorial representations of supposed territorial limits, the evidence of which must be sought for elsewhere. There may be cases, it is true, where maps may be evidence; when, for instance, it has been specially provided that a particular map, such as Melish"s Map of North America, shall be the basis of a convention: but it is to be regretted that maps of unsurveyed districts should ever have been introduced into diplomatic discussions, where limits conformable to convenient physical outlines, such as headlands or water-courses, are really sought for, and are understood to be the subject of negotiation.
The pictorial features of a country, which, in such cases, have been frequently a.s.sumed as the basis of the negotiation, have not unusually caused greater embarra.s.sment to both the parties in the subsequent attempt to reconcile them with the natural features, than the original question in dispute, to which they were supposed to have furnished a solution. That the name of Nouvelle France should have been applied by French authors and in French maps to the country as far as the sh.o.r.es of the Pacific Ocean, was as much to be expected as that the name of California should have been extended by the Spaniards to the entire north-west coast of America, which we know to have been the fact, from the negotiations in the Nootka Sound controversy.
CHAPTER XIII.
TREATY OF WASHINGTON.
The Treaty of San Ildefonso.--Ineffectual Negotiations between Spain and the United States, in 1805, respecting the Boundary of Louisiana.--Resumed in 1817.--M. Kerlet"s Memoir cited by Spain, Crozat"s Charter by the United States, as Evidence.--Spain proposes the Missouri as the mutual Boundary.--The United States propose to cross the Rocky Mountains, and draw the Line from the Snow Mountains along 41 to the Pacific.--Negotiations broken off.--Spain proposes the Columbia River as the Frontier.--Offers the Parallel of 41 to the Multnomah, and along that River to the Sea.--Error in Melish"s Map.--The United States propose the Parallel of 41 to the Pacific.--Spain proposes the Parallel of 42 to the Multnomah, and along that River to 43, thence to the Pacific.--The 42 Parallel adopted.--Source of the Multnomah or Willamette River, in about 44.--Wilkes" exploring Expedition--Third Article of the Treaty.--The a.s.serted Rights of Spain to the Californias.--Her t.i.tle by Discovery.--The United States decline to discuss them.--The a.s.serted Rights of the United States to the Valley of the Mississippi.--Mr.
Greenhow"s Remarks.--The Spanish Commissioner declines to negotiate.--Design of the President of the United States.--Question of Rights abandoned.--Object of the Spanish Concessions.--Santa Fe.--Ultimate Agreement.--Review of the Claims of the two Parties.--Principles of international Law advanced by the United States.--Possession of the Sea-coast ent.i.tles to Possession of the interior Country.--Vattel.--Inconsistency of the Diplomatists of the United States.--Treaty of Paris.--Natural Boundary of conterminous Settlements, the Mid-distance.--Vattel.--Wheaton.--Acquisition of t.i.tle from Natives barred by first Settlers against other European Powers.--Right of Pre-emption.
In the same year in which the Convention of 1818 was concluded at London between the United States and Great Britain, negotiations were being carried on at Washington between Spain and the United States, with the view of determining the effects of the Treaty of 1803, whereby Louisiana had been ceded by France to the latter power. It had been stipulated in the treaty of San Ildefonso in 1800, that Spain should retrocede "the colony or province of Louisiana, with the same extent which it now has in the hands of Spain, and which it had when France possessed it, and such as it ought to be according to the treaties subsequently made between Spain and other powers." (British and Foreign State Papers, 1817-18, p. 267-9.) The Treaty of 1803 in its turn ceded Louisiana to the United States, "in the name of the French republic, for ever and in full sovereignty, with all its rights and appurtenances, as fully and in the same manner as they have been acquired by the French republic, in virtue of the above-mentioned treaty with his Catholic Majesty." It thus became requisite to determine the limits of this new acquisition of the United States, both on the side of the Floridas, and on that of New Spain. An examination of the discussion regarding the eastern boundary towards the Floridas is unnecessary on the present occasion. The question respecting the western limit was, perhaps, the more difficult to settle, from the circ.u.mstance that Texas was claimed by Spain as a province of New Spain, whilst the United States insisted that it was a portion of Louisiana: whilst Spain contended that she had only ceded the _Spanish province_ of Louisiana, the United States maintained that she had retroceded the _French colony_. Spain thereupon proposed a line which, "beginning at the Gulf of Mexico between the River Carecut or Cascasiu, and the Armenta or Marmentoa, should go to the north, pa.s.sing between Adaes and Natchitoches, until it cuts the Red River," on the ground that the Arroyo-Hondo, which is midway between Natchitoches and Adaes, had been, in fact, considered to be the boundary in 1763. The United States on the other hand, insisted on the Rio Bravo del Norte as the western frontier, on the ground that the settlement of La Salle in the Bay of St. Bernard (Matagorda) carried with it a right to the territory as far as the Rio Bravo. Beyond the Red River Spain proposed that the boundary should be determined by commissioners, after a survey of the territory, then but little known, and a reference to doc.u.ments and dates, "which might furnish the necessary light to both governments upon limits which had never been fixed or determined with exactness." (State Papers, 1817-18, p. 321.) Such was the proposal made by Don Pedro Cevallos on the part of Spain, on April 9th, 1805. Messrs.
Pinckney and Moore, in reply, proposed a compromise in connection with the western frontier, that a line along the River Colorado, from its mouth to its source, and from thence to the northern limits of Louisiana, should be the boundary; but the Spanish government declined to accept their proposal, and the negotiations were not resumed till the year 1817.
Spain had, in the mean time, during the captivity of the Spanish monarch in France, been unexpectedly deprived of the greater part of West Florida, in 1810, by the United States, without any declaration of war, or stipulation of peace, which could seem to authorise it. On re-opening the negotiation in 1817, the Spanish Government, having waived all demands on this head, proposed to cede the two Floridas to the United States in exchange for the territory which lies between the River Mississippi and the well-known limit which now separates, and has separated Louisiana, when France possessed it, before the year 1764, and even before the death of King Charles II. of Spain, from the Spanish province of Texas: so that the Mississippi might be the only boundary of the dominions of his Catholic Majesty and of those of the United States. (State Papers, 1817-1818, p. 356.)
In the course of the subsequent negotiations, the Spanish commissioner, Don Luis de Onis, in a letter of the 12th of March 1818, refused to admit the authority of the grant of Louis XIV. to Crozat as evidence of the limits of Louisiana, and referred to the memoir drawn up by M. Kerlet, for many years governor of the province before it was ceded to Spain by the Treaty of 1763, containing a description of its proper extent and limits.
This memoir had been delivered by the Duc de Choiseul, minister of France, to the Spanish amba.s.sador at Paris, as a supplement to the Act of Cession of Louisiana. (State Papers, 1817-18, p. 437.) On the other hand, the Secretary of State, on the part of the United States, maintained that "the only boundaries ever acknowledged by France, before the cession to Spain in Nov. 3, 1762, were those marked out in the grant from Louis XIV. to Crozat." She always claimed the territory which Spain called Texas, as being within the limits, and forming part of Louisiana, "which in that grant is declared to be bounded westward by New Mexico, eastward by Carolina, and extending inward to the Illinois, and to the sources of the Mississippi, and of its princ.i.p.al branches." (State Papers, 1817-18, p.
470.)
These discussions were suspended for a short time, in consequence of difficulties between the two governments respecting the Seminole Indians in Florida; but on the 24th of October Don Luis d"Onis proposed, that "to avoid all causes of dispute in future, the limits of the respective possessions of both governments to the west of the Mississippi shall be designated by a line beginning on the Gulf of Mexico, between the rivers Marmentoa and Cascasiu, following the Arroyo-Hondo, between Adaes and Natchitoches, crossing the Rio Roxo, or Red River, at 32 of lat.i.tude and 98 of longitude, from London, according to Melish"s map, and thence running directly north, crossing the Arkansas, the White, and the Osage Rivers, till it strikes the Missouri, and then following the middle of that river to its source, so that the territory on the right bank of the said river will belong to Spain, and that on the left bank to the United States. The navigation of the Mississippi and Marmentoa shall remain free to the subjects of both parties." (State Papers, 1818-19, p. 276.)
No proposal had as yet been advanced by either party to carry the boundary line across the Rocky Mountains till October 31, 1818, when Mr. Adams offered, as the ultimatum of the United States, a "line from the mouth of the River Sabine, following its course to 32 N. L., thence due north to the Rio Roxo, or Red River, following the course of that river to its source, touching the chain of the Snow Mountains in lat.i.tude 37 25"
north, thence to the summit, and following the chain of the same to 41, thence following the same parallel to the South Sea." The Spanish commissioner, in his reply, undertook to admit the River Sabine instead of the Marmentoa, on condition "that the line proposed by Mr. Adams should run due north from the point where it crosses the Rio Roxo till it strikes the Missouri, and thence along the middle of the latter to its source;"
but in regard to the extension of the line beyond the Missouri, _along the Spanish possessions to the Pacific_, he declared himself to be totally unprepared by his instructions to discuss such a proposal. The negotiations were in consequence broken off. Subsequently, the Spanish commissioner, having received fresh instructions from his government in a letter of June 16, 1819, proposed to draw the western boundary line between the United States and the Spanish territories from the source of the Missouri to the Columbia River, and along the course of the latter to the Pacific, which Mr. Adams, on the part of the United States, rejected as inadmissible. Don Luis d"Onis thereupon, having expressly waived all questions as to the right of either power to the territory in dispute, and also as to the limits of Louisiana, proposed that the boundary line, as suggested by Mr. Adams, should follow the Sabine river to its source, thence by the 94th degree of longitude to the Red River of Natchitoches, and along the same to the 95th degree; and crossing it at that point, should run by a line due north to the Arkansas, and along it to its source, thence by a line due west till it strikes the source of the River St. Clemente or Multnomah, in lat.i.tude 41, and along that river to the Pacific Ocean: the whole agreeably to Melish"s map. This is another very remarkable instance of the danger of referring even to the best maps, when territorial limits are to be regulated by the physical features of a country. There must have been a monstrous error in Melish"s map, which the Spanish commissioner had before him, if such a line could have been drawn upon it from the source of the Arkansas _due west_ to the source of the Multnomah, the modern Willamette River. Mr. Adams, in reply, proposed a slightly modified line "to the source of the Arkansas in 41, and thence due west to the Pacific along the parallel of 41 according to Melish"s map up to 1818; but if the source of the Arkansas should fall south or north of 41, then the line should be drawn due north or south from its source to the 41st parallel, and thence due west to the sea." This would have been an intelligible line. Don Luis d"Onis then communicated a project of a further modified line from the 100th parallel of longitude west of Greenwich along the middle of the Arkansas to the 42d parallel; "thence a line shall be drawn westward, by the same parallel of lat.i.tude, to the source of the River San Clemente, or Multnomah, following the course of that river to the 43 of lat.i.tude, and thence by a line due west to the Pacific Ocean." Another counter project was proposed by Mr. Adams on the 13th of February, and ultimately it was agreed between the parties to admit the parallel of 42 from the source of the Arkansas westward to the Pacific Ocean, with the proviso that if the source of the Arkansas should be north or south of 42, the line should be drawn from it south or north to the 42d parallel. It was fortunate that this proviso was adopted, for actual surveys have since determined the source of the Arkansas to be at the foot of the Sierra Verde, in about 46 45" north lat.i.tude. On the other hand, as an ill.u.s.tration of the lamentable want of information on the part of the Spanish commissioner in respect to the boundary line which he proposed to be drawn, first of all along the parallel of 41 due west to the source of the Multnomah, and secondly along the parallel of 42 due west to the same river, it may be observed, that the source of this river is ascertained to be very little further south than the 44th parallel of lat.i.tude, as may be seen in the excellent American map attached to Commander Wilkes" Exploring Expedition, though even so late as in Mitch.e.l.l"s map for 1834 it is placed in about 42.
The Treaty of Washington, or the Floridas, was thus at last concluded on the 22d February, 1819, and by the third article, after specifying the boundary line, as above described, between the two countries west of the Mississippi, it concludes thus: "The two high contracting parties agree to cede and renounce all their rights, claims, and pretensions to the territories described by the said line; that is to say, the United States hereby cede to his Catholic Majesty, and renounce for ever, all their rights, claims, and pretensions to the territories lying west and south of the above described line; and in like manner his Catholic Majesty cedes to the United States all his rights, claims, and pretensions to any territories east and north of the said line, and for himself, his heirs and successors, renounces all claim to the said territories for ever."
(Martens" Nouveau Recueil des Traites, v., p. 333.)
It will be observed from the words of the above article, that the nature of the rights reciprocally ceded are in no manner specified. It thus becomes necessary to look to the antecedent negotiations to determine this question. In the first communication from the Chevalier d"Onis, on January 5, 1818, in respect to the western boundary of Louisiana, we find him a.s.sert that "the right and dominion of the Crown of Spain to the north-west coast of America, as high up as the Californias, is not less certain and indisputable (than her claim to West Florida,) the Spaniards having explored as far as the 47th degree in the expedition under Juan de Fuca in 1592, and in that of Admiral Fonte to the 55th degree in 1640.
"The dominion of Spain in these vast regions being thus established, and her rights of discovery, conquest, and possession, being never disputed, she could scarcely possess a property founded on more respectable principles, whether of the law of nations, of public law, or any others which serve as a basis to such acquisitions as all the independent kingdoms and states of the earth consist of." (State Papers, 1817-18, p.
427.)
Mr. Adams, in his reply of January 16, 1818, stated that "the President of the United States considered it would be an unprofitable waste of time to enter again at large upon topics of controversy, which were at that time [1805] so thoroughly debated, and upon which he perceives nothing in your notes, which was not then substantially argued by Don Pedro Cevallos, and to which every reply essential to elucidate the rights and establish the pretensions on the part of the United States was then given." Without, therefore, noticing even in the slightest manner that portion of the Spanish t.i.tle now for the first time set out in respect of the Californias, and which had not in any manner been alluded to in the previous correspondence, he simply proposed, "the Colorado River from its mouth to its source, and from thence to the northern limits of Louisiana, to be the western boundary; or to leave that boundary unsettled for future arrangement." It may be observed, that the paramount object of the United States at this moment, was to obtain the cession of the Spanish claims to territories _eastward_ of the Mississippi. [State Papers, 1817-18, p.
450.] The western frontier was comparatively of less pressing importance.
Various communications having in the mean time been exchanged, Mr. Adams at last, in his letter of Oct. 31, 1818, proposed for the first time, on the part of the United States, an extension of the boundary to the Pacific Ocean, namely, a line drawn due west along the 41st parallel. He did not attempt, on this occasion, to contest the position which Spain had taken up in respect to territory west of the Rocky Mountains, but contented himself with again a.s.serting, that the rights of the United States to the entire valley of the Mississippi and its confluents were established beyond the reach of controversy. Mr. Greenhow [p. 316] observes, "On these positive a.s.sertions of the Spanish minister, Mr. J. Q. Adams, the American plenipotentiary and Secretary of State, did not consider himself required to make any comment; and the origin, extent, and value of the claims of Spain to the north-western portion of America, remained unquestioned during the discussion."
The Spanish commissioner seems to have regarded the silence of Mr. Adams as a tacit admission that his position was una.s.sailable, and therefore was totally unprepared for the proposal of the United States, if we may judge from his reply:--"What you add respecting the extension of the same line beyond the Missouri, along the Spanish possessions to the Pacific Ocean, exceeds by its magnitude and its transcendency all former demands and pretensions stated by the United States. Confining, therefore, myself to the power granted to me by my sovereign, I am unable to stipulate any thing on this point." [State Papers, 1818-19, p. 284.]
Mr. Adams, in his reply of Nov. 30, 1818, [ibid. 291,] writes, "As you have now declared that you are not authorised to agree, either to the course of the Red River, [Rio Roxo,] for the boundary, nor to the 41st parallel of lat.i.tude, from the Snow Mountains to the Pacific Ocean, the President deems it useless to pursue any further the attempt at an adjustment of this object by the present negotiation." Don Luis, in withdrawing for the present moment from the negotiation, in his letter of Dec. 12, 1818, [ibid., p. 502,] observes, "I even expressed my earnest desire to conclude the negotiation, so far as to admit the removal of the boundary line, from the Gulf of Mexico, on the river Sabine, as proposed by you; and I only added, that it should run more or less obliquely to the Missouri, thereby still keeping in view the consideration of conciliating the wish that your government might have, of retaining such other settlements as might have been formed on the bank of that river, and observing, nevertheless, that it was not to pa.s.s by New Mexico, or _any other provinces or dominions of the crown of Spain_."
The Spanish commissioner, after obtaining fresh instructions to authorize him to extend the boundary line to the Pacific Ocean, stated in a letter of Jan. 16, 1819, to Mr. Adams, [State Papers, 1819-20, p. 565,] that "his Majesty will agree that the boundary line between the two states shall extend from the source of the Missouri, westward to the Columbia River, and along the middle thereof to the Pacific Ocean;" in the hope that this basis would be accepted by the President, "as it presents the means of realizing his great plan of extending a navigation from the Pacific to the remotest points of the northern states."
This offer was not accepted, and Mr. Adams, in his reply of Jan. 29, 1819, simply stated, "that the proposal to draw the western boundary line between the United States and the Spanish territories on this continent, from the source of the Missouri to the Columbia River, cannot be admitted," (ibid. p. 566;) and at the same time he renewed his proposal of the 31st of October last, as to the parallel of 41.
Don Luis de Onis, as might be expected, did not accede to this, and in his next letter, of Feb. 1, 1819, writes, "I have proved to you in the most satisfactory manner, that neither the Red River of Natchitoches, nor the Columbia, ever formed the boundary of Louisiana; but as you have intimated to me that it is useless to pursue the discussion any further, I acquiesce with you therein, and I agree that, keeping out of view the rights which either party may have to the territory in dispute, we should confine ourselves to the settlement of those points which may be for the mutual interest and convenience of both.
"Upon this view, therefore, of the subject, and considering that the motive for declining to admit my proposal of extending the boundary line from the Missouri to the Columbia, and along that river to the Pacific, appears to be the wish of the President to include, within the limits of the Union, all the branches and rivers emptying into the said River Columbia, I will adapt my proposals on this point, so as fully to satisfy the demand of the United States, without losing sight of the essential object, namely, that the boundary line shall, as far as possible, be natural and clearly defined, and leave no room for dispute to the inhabitants on either side."
He therefore proposed, as the Red River rose within a few leagues of Santa Fe, the capital of New Mexico, to subst.i.tute the Arkansas for the Red River; so that the line along the Red River should not be drawn further westward than the 95th degree of longitude, and crossing it at that point, should run "due north to the Arkansas, and along it to its source; thence, by a line due west, till it strikes the source of the River St. Clemente, or Multnomah, in lat.i.tude 41, and along that river to the Pacific Ocean.
The whole agreeably to Melish"s map."--(State Papers, 1819-20, p. 568.)
Mr. Adams on the other hand, on Feb. 6, 1819, repeated the proposal of the United States as to the line from the source of the Arkansas River being drawn along the parallel of 41 N. L. to the Pacific, with other modifications in the general detail of the boundary.
This proposal, however, was not accepted, and the Spanish commissioner in his turn, on Feb. 9, proposed a different line, to be drawn "along the middle of the Arkansas to the 42 of lat.i.tude; thence a line shall be drawn westward by the same parallel of lat.i.tude to the source of the River San Clemente or Multnomah, following the course of that river to the 43 of lat.i.tude, and thence by a line to the Pacific Ocean." (Ibid. p. 570.)
Mr. Adams, in his answer of February 13, 1819, still retained the parallel of 41 of lat.i.tude from the source of the Arkansas to the South Sea, according to Melish"s map. (Ibid. p. 575.)
The Chevalier de Onis, on the 16th of February 1819, ultimately agreed "to admit the 42 instead of the 43 of lat.i.tude from the Arkansas to the Pacific Ocean." (Ibid. p. 580.)
These extracts from the doc.u.mentary correspondence preliminary to the Treaty of 1819, will show the nature of the claims maintained by the two parties, and thus serve to explain the meaning of the third article of the treaty. Spain a.s.serted her right and dominion over the northwest coast of America as high up as the Californias, as based upon the discoveries of Juan de Fuca in 1592, and Admiral Fonte in 1640. The United States made _no claim_ to territory west of the Rocky Mountains. On the other hand, the United States a.s.serted her right over the coasts of the Mexican Gulf from the Mississippi to the Rio Bravo by virtue of Crozat"s grant, and of the settlement of La Salle in the Bay of St. Bernard, whilst Spain maintained that the expedition of Hernando de Soto and others ent.i.tled her by discovery to the entire coasts of the Mexican Gulf, and that the crown of Spain, before 1763, had extended her dominion eastward over the right side of the Mississippi from its mouth to the mouth of the Missouri, and northward over the right side of the latter river from its mouth to its source; in other words, that the dependencies of the Spanish province of New Mexico extended as far as the Missouri and the Mississippi, and the Spanish province of Texas as far as the Red River and Mississippi. The rights, claims, and pretensions, therefore, to any territories lying east and north of the parallel of 42, which Spain, by the 3rd article of the Treaty of 1819, ceded to the United States, had respect to the Spanish province of Texas, the Spanish province of New Mexico, and the Californias; the rights, claims, and pretensions which the United States ceded to his Catholic Majesty to any territories west and south of this line, had reference to the coasts of the Gulf of Mexico as far the Rio Bravo, and the inland country; for no claim or pretension had been advanced by the United States to territory beyond the Rocky Mountains, and the object of the negotiation was expressly to determine the boundaries of Louisiana, which the United States insisted had been ceded to them in the full extent in which it had been possessed by France, according to the limits marked out by Louis XIV. in his grant to Crozat.