Newspaper Page Text
made.
It war therefore -t.puUlcil that
grants prior to the «4lh Jmaatj 1818,
should i*e confirmed, only “ ll ! e *'" ni
erteni that the Mine grant* wo,,ld be "*
lid, if the Territories had ' f ma "J, d “"*
der thedoutimonoflnstathoi c M^.
t y .” This of course excluded the three
grants ahot e mentioned, " l»ch Mf-
bad declared invalid hr want of the ful-
filtneul of their essential condition*, .
fact which is now explicitly admitted bj
roll \ single exception to the princi
ple that the Treaty should give no con-
finnation to any imperfect tide, was nd
milted ; which exception was, that own
ers in possession of lands, wbo, by rca-
■on of the recent circumstances of the
Spanish nation, and the Revolution. ...
Europe, had been prevented from I al
l’ll ling all the conditions of their grant.,
should compUd them within the terms
limited in the some, from the date of the
treaty ; this had obviously no reference
to tlie above mentioned grants, the gran
tees of which were not in possession of
the lands, who had fulfilled none of their
conditions, and who had not been pre
sented from fulfilling any of them by the
circumstances ofSpain, or the revolu
tions of Europe.
The article was dr awn up by me ; and,
before assenting to it, Mr. Oms enquired
what was understood by me as the im
port of the terms 1 shall complete tlrem.’
j told him, that, in connection with the
terms “ all the conditions,” they neces
sarily implied that the indulgence would
he limited to grantees, who had perform
ed route of the conditions, and who had
commenced settlements, which it ivould
allow them to complete. These were
precisely the cases tor which Mr. Onis
had urged the equity of making a provi-,
eion, and he agreed to the article, fully
understanding that it would be applica
ble only to them.
When, after the signature of the trea
ty, there appeared to be some reason for
supposing that Mr. Onis had been mista
ken in believing that the grants to the
Duke of flagon, Count Punon Rostro,
and Mr. Vargas, were subsequent to the
24th January, 1818, candor required
that Spain and the grantees should never
have a shadow of ground to expect or
allege that this cicumstance was at all ma
terial in relation to the bearing of the
treaty upon those grants. Mr. Onis had
not been mistaken in declaring that they
were invalid, because their conditions
were not fulfiled. He had not been
mistaken in agreeing to the principle
that no grant, invalid as to Spain, should,
by the treaty, be made valid against the
United States. He had not been mista
ken, in the knowledge that those gran
tees had neither commenced settlements
nor been prevented from completing
them, by the circumstances of Spain, or
the revolutions in Europe. The declar
ation which Mr. Forsyth was intrusted
to deliver, was merely to caution all
whom it might concern, net to infer, from
an unimportant mistake of Mr. Onis as
to the date of the grants, other important
mistakes which he had not made, and
which the United States would not per
mit to be made by any one. I: was not,
therefore, to annul or to alter, but to ful
fil the 8th article, as it stands, that the
declaration was to he delivered ; and it
is for the same purpose that this explana
tion is now given.
It was with much satisfaction, therefore,
that I learned from you the determination
of your government to assent to the total
nullity of the above mentioned grants.
As 1 Hatter myself that these explana
tions will remove every obstacle to the
reification of the treaty by His Catholic
m k sty, it is much to be regretted that yon
k ivc not that ratification to exchange, nor
the power to give a pledge which would
he equivalent to the ratification. 'The
six months within which the exchange of
the ratifications were stipulated by the
treaty having elapsed, by the principles
of o ir Constitution, the question whether
it shall be now accepted, must be laid
before the Senate for their advice and
consent. To give a last and signal proof
of the earnest wish of this government
to bring to aconclusion these long-stand
ing and unhappy differences with Spain,
the President will so far receive that so
lemn promise of immediate ratification
upon the arrival of your messenger at
Madrid, which, in yoiir'note of the 19th
tiltirno, you declare yourself authorised,
in the name of your Sovereign, to give,
as to submit to the Senate of the United
States, whether they will advise and
consent to accept it, for the ratification
of the United States hei etofore given.
Rut, it is proper to apprize you, that
if this offer is not accepted, the United
Sntcs, besides being entitled to resume
all the rights, claims, and pretentions,
which they had renounced by the treaty,
can no longer consent to relinquish their
claims of indemnity, and those of then
citizens, from Spain, fur all the injuries
which they have suffered and are suflfer-
ina.bv the delay of His Catholic Majesty
to ratify the treaty. The amount of
claims ofthe citizens of the United States,
which existed at the time when the treaty
was signed, far exceeded that which the
U niter) States consented to accept as in-
(d'-mmty. 1 heir right of territory wms,
an t vet is, to the Rio del Norte. 1 am
in di a .t *d to declare, that if any further
d. lav to the ratification by His Catholic
M >i My, of the treaty, should occur, the
United States coalJ not hereafter accept
either of five millions-of dollars for the
indemnities due totheir citizens by Spain
nor ofthe Sabine, for the boundn'ry be
tn eeri 'he U. States and the Spanish terri
torics. Please to accept the renewed
surance of my distinguished consideration
JOIl\ QC1NCT ADAMS.
Venera! Den Francisco Dinnisio Vires, to Ate
Secretary fo State.
( rBAKH.ATlON.']
Sir : Tn answer to your note ofthe Sd in
i taut, end b‘ pursuance of what 1 express
fo you in both our lute conference, I has e to
statu to you, Hint I am satisfied upon the first
point of the proposals contained in my note
of the 11th ultimo ; and ain persuaded that.,
if the existing laws enacted fur the suppres
sion of piracy, should prove inadequate, more
elTictiial measures w ill tie adopted by your
Government, for the attainment of that im
portant object.
I also admit as satisfactory, the answer
given to the sei-nnd point; but I cannot assent
to your assertion that the laws of this country
have always been competent to the preven
tion of the excesses complained of : it being
quite notorious, that the expedition alluded
to, has not been the only one set on foot for
the invasion of 11 in Majesty’s dominions ;
and it is, therefore, not surprising, that the
King, toy lord, should give credit lo the in
formation received in relation to that expe
dition, or that he should now require of your
government n pledge, that the integrity of
the Spanish possessions in North America
shall lie respected.
1 mentioned to you in conference, mid I
now repeat it, that the. answer to the third
point was not such as 1 could, agreeably to
the nature of my instructions, accept, as be
ing satisfactory ; and that, although llis Ma
jesty might not have required of any of the
European governments tins declaration which
lie has required of yours, yet, that ought not
to he considered as unreasonable; it being
well known to the King, my master, that
those governments, so far fnitri being dispo
sed to wish to recognize the insurgent go
vernments of the Spanish colonics, had de
clined the invitation, intimated to them some
time past, by yours, to acknowledge the pro
tended Republic of Buenos Ayres. I, not
withstanding, renew to you the ussinance
that i will submit to llis Majesty the verbal
discussion we have had upon this point, and
accompany it with such additional arguments
as will, in my judgment, probably determine
His Majesty to declare liimscU to be satis
fied therewith.
In the event of the king’s receiving as sat
isfactory the answer of your government to
the third point of my proposals, the abroga
tion of the grants will be attended with no
difficulty ; nor has that ever been the chief
motive for suspending the ratification of the
treaty ; for the thorough comprehension of
which I waive, at present, any reply to the
remarks which you are pleased to ofler on
that topic. 1 cannot, however, refrain from
stating to you that, in discussing with you
the validity or the nullity ofthe grants above-
mentioned, 1 merely said “ that, in my pri
vate opinion, they were null and void, thro’
the inability of the grantees to coney with
the terms ofthe law.”
It is to me a matter of great regret that I
have it not in my power to repeat the solemn
promise that llis Majesty will ratify the trea
ty ; inasmuch as I cannot, agreeably to my
instructions, accept as satisfactory the an
swer given to the third point of my propo
sals. I am, however, persuaded that II. M.
upon consideration of the representation
which I shall have the honor to lay before
him, and ofthe reasons assigned by your go
vernment for withholding its assent to the
third point, will consider himself as satisfied
and ratify the treaty.
I further conceive it my duty to state to
you, that, at the time when 1 communicated
to your government the substance of my
present answer, 1 mentioned, speaking in my
individual capacity, that, although 1 had no
official information of it, yet I consider as au
thentic the current intelligence of an impor
tant change said to have taken place, in the
government of Spain ; and that this circum
stance alone would impose on me the obliga
tion of giving tin greater latitude to my pro
mise previous to my receiving new instruc
tions.
1, therefore, hope that your government,
upon consideration of what I have now sub
mitted to you, and of the contents of my for
mer notes, will agree to await the. final deci
sion of the king, my master, upon the only
point still pending, and the adjustment of
which is not within my competency; no
that the past differences may be satisfacto
rily terminated, and the treaty receive its
final accomplishment, thereby securing and
perpetuating a perfect harmony and good
understanding between the two govern
ments.
Be pie ised to acrept the assurances of my
distinguished consideration. I pray God to
preserve you many years.
' FRANCISCO DIONISIO VIVES.
Washington, May o, 1920.
The Secretary of State to General Fires.
General Vives, Extraordinary ami Minister Pie
nipolcntiary of Spain-
I)'part men! of Slate,
Washington, 6Ih May, 1320.
Sir ; In the letter which I have had the
honor of receiving froiuyou, dated yesterday,
ou observe that you renew the assurance
that you will submit to His Majesty the ver
bal discussion wc have held on tlie third point
concerning which you were instructed to ask
for explanations. 1 have to request of you
to state specifically the representation which
you propose io make to His Majesty of what
passed between us in conference on this sub
ject.
I pray you to accept the renewed assur
ance of my distinguished consideration.
JOHN QUINCY ADAMS.
General Den Francisco Dionisio Fives, to tht
Secretary of State.
[TRANSLATION.]
Sir : I have received the note you were
pleased to address to me, of yesterday’s date,
and, in answer thereto, I have to state, that
the verbal discussion between us, upon the
third point of my proposals, is comprised in
your note of the third, ami my reply of the
fifth instant ; and that, consequently, tin
statement of it, which 1 shall transmit for his
Majesty’s information, will he in strict accor
dance with the tenor of the said notes.
I renew to you the assurance of my liigl
esteem, and I pray God to preserve you ma
ny years.
FRANCISCO DIONISIO VIVES
Washington, 1th May, 1320.
The Secretirv nr State,
To General Don Francisco Dionisio Fives, Unvote
Extraordinary, amt Minister I'lenijioUutiary
of Spain.
Department of State,
Washington, Hth May, 1320
Sir :—In the letter which 1 had the honor
of writing you ou tlie 3rd instant, it was oh
served that all reference would readily be
waived to the delays which have retarded the
ratiffcation by llis Catholic Majesty, of the
treaty ofthe 22nd February, 1U1!)—and all
disquisition upon the perfect* right of the
United States,*to that ratification ; in the
confident expectathfn that it would In;
mediately given upon the arrival cf your
messenger ut Madrid, and subject to your
compliance with the proposal offered you in
the same note, ns the last proof which the
President could give of his reliance upon the
termination of the differences between tl
United States and Spain, by the ratificatioi
cf the treaty.
Thi? proposal wap, tlmt, upon the cxplt- [
nations given you on all the points, noticed
in your instructions, and with which you had
admitted yourself to he personally satisfied,
you should give the solemn promise, in the
name of your Sovereign, which, by your
note of the. I Dili iiltini", you had declared
yourself authorized to pledge, that the rati
fication should he given immediately on the
arriv al of your messenger at Madrid, which
promise., the President consented so far to
receive, as to submit t he question for the ad
vice anil consent ofthe Senate ofthe United
States, whether the ratification of Spain
should, under these circumstances, he ac
cepted in exchange for that of the United
States heretofore given. But the President
lias, with great regret, perceived by your
note of the 4th lust, that you decline giving
even that unconditional promise, upon two
allegations : one, that although the explana
tions given you on one of the points men
tioned in your note of the 1 tth ultimo, are
satisfactory to yourself, and yon hope and
believe, will prove so to your Sovereign, they
still were not such as you were authorized
by your instructions to accept—and the
other, that you are informed a great change
has recently occurred in the government of
~poin, v>bino chv.umst&nce alone would pre-
cut you from giving a further latitude to
nur promise previous to your receiving new
instructions.
It becomes therefore indispensably neces
sary to shew the absolute obligation by which
His Catholic Majesty was hound to ratify
the treaty w ithin the term stipulated by one
f its articles ; that the reasons allcdgcd for
his withholding the ratification are altogether
insufficient for the justification of that mea
sure, and that the United States have suf-
nsl by it the variation of a perfect right for
hich they are justly entitled to indemnity
id satisfaction, a right further corroborated
by the consideration that the refusal of
itificntion necessarily included the non-ful
filment of another compnet between tile par
ties whieh had been ratified—the convention
f August 1802.
While regretting the necessity of produ
cing this proof. I willingly repeat the expres
sion of my satisfaction at being relieved from
that of enlarging upon other topics of an
unpleasant character. I shall allude to none
of those, upon which you have admitted the
xplanalions given to lie satisfactory, eonsid-
ring them as uo longer subjects of discus
sion between us or our governments, 1
shall with pleasure forbear noticing any
remarks in your notes concerning them,
,’liich might otherwise require ar.imadver-
' in.
With the. view of confining; this letter to
the only point upon which further observa
tion is necessary, it will be proper to state
the present aspect of the relations between
the contracting parties.
The treaty of 22nd February, 1819, was
signed, after a succession of negotiations, of
nearly twenty years’duration, in which all
the causes of difference between the two na
tions had been thoroughly discussed, and
it.h a final admission on the part of Spain,
that there were existing just claims on her
government, at least to the amount of five
millions of dollars, due to citizens of tlie U.
States, and for the payment of which pro-
isiou was mode hy the treaty. It was sign-
dby a minister, who had been several years
residing in the United States, in constant and
unremitted exertions to maintain the inter-
sts and pretensions of Spain, involved in
the negotiation ; signed after producing a
full power, by which, in terms as solemn and
as sacred as ihc hand of a Sovereign can
subscribe, his Catholic. Majesty had promis
ed to approve, ratify, and fulfil, whatever
should be stipulated and signed by him.
You will permit me to repeat, that by
very principle of natural right, and by the
universal assent of civilized nations, nothing
can release the honor of a Sovereign from
the obligation of a promise thus unqualified
without the proof that his Minister lias sign
ed stipulations unwarranted by his instruc
tions. The express authority uf two of the
most eminent writers upon national law, to
this point were cile.d in Mr. Forsyth’s letter
of 2nd October, 1819, to tlie Duke of San
Fernando. The words of Vattel are . “ But,
to refuse, with honor, to ratify that which
has been concluded in virtue of a full power,
the Sovereign must have strong and solid
reasons for it : and particularly lie must
show that his minister transcended his instruc
tions.”* Tlie words of Martens arc: “ Eve
ry thing that lias been stipulated by an agent,
in conformity to his full powers, ought to
become obligatory for the state from the
moment of signing, without ever waiting for
the ratification. However, net to expose a
state to the errors of a single person, it is
now become a general maxim, that public
conventions do not become obligatory until
ratified. The motive of this custom clearly
proves that the ratification can never ho re
fused with justice, except when he who is
charged with the ncgociation, keeping with
in the extent of his public full [lowers, has
gone beyond his secret instructions, k con
sequently, rendered himself liable to punish
ment ; or when the other party refuses lo
ratify.”] In your letter of the tilth ultimo,
you observe that these positions have ulrca
ily been refuted by your government; whieh
makes it necessary to inquire, as I, with great
reluctance, do, how they have been refuted:
The duke of San Fernando, in his reply to
the letter of Mr. Forsyth, says, maintains,
and repeats, “ that the very authorities ci
ted by Mr. Forsyth, literally declare, that
the sovereign, for strong and solid reasons,
or, if his minister has exceeded his instruc
tions, may refuse his ratification, [Vattel,
book 2, chap. 14.] and that public treaties
are not obligatory until ratified." [Martens,
book 2, chap. 3, see note.] In these citati
ons, the duke of San Fernando has suhstitu
ted for the connective term and in Vattel
which makes the proof of instructions trans
cended indispensable to justify the refusal of
ratification, the disjunctive term or, which
presents it as an alternative, and unnecessa
rily, on the contingency of other existing
strong ami solid reasons. Vattel says the so
vereign must have strong and solid reasons
anel particularly must show that the minis-
“ Mnis pour refuser aver, honrur ric ratiAer,
re qiii a etc com-lunen virtu d un pleiu puitvoir,
it taut que le Souverain cn ait do fortes ct aolitle
raisons, cl qu’ il fusse voir cii purticulier, que
sou millilitre a'est ecurte de ses instructions."
Liv. 2, ch. 12, § 1,16.
f “ Ce qui a ete stipule pur tin sulmitcrnc, en
conformin' dc son plein nouvoir dev ient a la ri
gueur obtigatoii" pour la nation du moment
nicine de la sign ture sans que lu ratification
suit necessaire. Dependant pour uc pas abiin
donner Ic sort des Flats an\ erreurs d un seal
il a ete introdult par un usage gencraleiuent re
connu, que les conventions publiques ne devi
ennent oliligatoires, que ies conventions puLdi
qnes ne deviennent obligatolres. que tors quel
lei out ete ratified. l.c motif de eel usage in
dique assez qu'on ne peut y provoquer avec ju
lice, que lorsqne celui qui est charge de* affaire
<l<- Ida!, t'Ji se tenant dims les bornes de sun
■'loin pouvoir public, a bum'll cetle, dc- son in
Iruction secrettp el que par consequent il s’est
tcefiu punissable." Liv 2 ; cL £ Ut
li r trair t ended his i.istiui I
f,Stin FcrflMidu makes him say the sove
reign must have strong and solid reasons,or
if his minister has exceeded his instructions.
V attel not only makes the broach of instruc
tions indispensable, hut puts Upon the sove
reign the obligation of proving it. The dnkc
of San Fernando cites Vattel, not only as ad
mitting that other reasons, w illiout a breach
of instructions, may justify n refusal ol rati
fication, but that the mere fact of such a
breach would also justify the refusal, with
out requiring that the so' ereign alledging
should prove it.
Is this refutation?
The only observation that I shall permit
...ysolf upon it, is to mark how conclusive
the authority ofthe passage in \ nt‘el must
have been to the mind of him who thus traus-
fie-i.icd it to the purpose for which he was
contending. The citation from Martcns/c-
ceives the same, treatment. The Duke of
San Fernando takes hy itself a part of a sen
tence, “thatpublic treaties are not obligato
ry until ratified.” He omits the preceding
sentence, by which Martens asserts that a
treaty, signed in conformity to full powers,
is in rigour obligatory from the moment of
signature, without waiting for the ratifica
tion. He omits the part of the sentence ci
ted, which ascribes the necessity of '.'.ratifi
cation to an usage, founded upon the danger
of exposing a state to the errors of its minis
ter. lie omits the following sentence, which
explicitly asserts that this usage can never
be resorted to, in justification of n refusal to
ratify, unless when the minister lias exceed
ed his secret instructions; and thus, with this
half of a sentence, stripped of all its qualify
ing context,the Duke brings Martens tons
sert that which ho most explicitly denies.
Is this refutation ?
While upon this subject, permit me to re
fer you to another passage of Vattel, which
I the more readily cite, because, indepen
dent of its weight as authority, it places this
obligation nf sovereigns upon its immovea
ble foundation of eternal justice in the law
of nature. “ It is shew n hy the law of nature,
that he who has made a promise to any one,
has conferred upon him a true right to re
quire the thing promised ; arid that, conse
quently, not tn keep a perfect promise, is to
violate the right of another ; and is as mani
fest an injustice, as that of depriv ing a per
sot) of his property. All the tranquility, the
happiness, and security, ofthe human race,
rests on justice, on the. obligation of paying a
regard to the rights of others. The respect
of others fur our l ights of domain and pro
perty constitutes the security of our actual
possessions. The faith of promises is our se
curity fur the things that cannot he deliver
ed or executed on the spot. There would
tie no more security, no longer any com
merce between mankind, did they not be
lieve themselves obliged to preserve theii
faith and keep their word. This obligation
is then as necessary, as it is natural and in
dubitable between the nations that live to
getherin astute of nature, and acknowledgi
no superior upon earth, to maintain order L.
peace in their society. Nations ami their
conductors ought then to keep their promi
ses uud their treaties inviolable. This great
truth, though too often neglected in practice,
generally acknowledged hy all nations.”]
The melancholy allusion to the frequent
practical neglect of this unquestionable prin
ciple, would afford a sufficient reply to your
assertion that the ratification of treaties has
often been refused, though signed by minis
ters with unqualified full powers, and w ith
out breach of their instructions. No case
cau he cited hy you, in which such a refusal
has been justly given ;and the fact of refusal,
separate from the justice of tlie case, a-
mounts to no more than the assertion that
sovereigns have often violated their engage
ments anil their duties. The obligation of
His Catholic Majesty to ratify the. treaty
signed hy Mr. Onis is therefore, complete.'
The 18th and last article of this treaty is
in the following words : “ The present trea
ty shall be ratified, in (luc form, hy the con
tracting parties, aud the ratifications shall he
exchanged in six months f
sooner, if possible.” Chi tli
tliolic Majesty’s promise, the treaty was,
immediately after its signature, ratified, on
the part of the United States, and on the
18th of May following, Mr. Forsyth, by an
official note, informed the Marquis of Casa
Yrujo, their Minister of Foreign Adairs ut
Madrid, that the treaty, duly ratified by the
United States, had been entrusted to him by
the President, and that he was prepared to
exchange it for the ratification of Spain. He
added that, from the nature of the engage
ment, it was desirable that the. earliest ex
change should he made ; and lhai the Ame
rican ship of war Hornet was waiting in the
harbor of Cadiz, destined in a few days to
the United States, and affording an oppor
tunity peculiarly convenient of transmitting
the ratified treaty to the United States.
No answer having been returned to thi-
note, on the 4th of June, Mr. Forsyth ad
dressed to the same Minister a second, urg
ing, in the most respectful terms, the neccs
sity of the departure of the Hornet; the just
expectation of the United States that’the
ratified treaty would be transmitted hy that
vessel, and tlie disappointment which could
not fail to ensue should she return without it.
After 15 days of further delay, on the lutli
of June, Mr. Forsyth was informed, hy a
note from Mr. Salmon, successor to the
Marquis of Casa Yrujo, that “ His Majesty
on reflecting outlie great importance and in
terest of the treaty in question, was under
the indispensable necessity of examining it
with the greatest caution and deliberation
before he proceeded to ratify it, and that
this was all lie vv as enabled to communicate
to Mr. Forsyth on that point."
Thus, after the. lapse of more than a month
from the time of Mr. Forsyth’s first note, L.
of more than two months from the time
when your government had received the
treaty, with a knowledge that it had been
ratified by the United Slates, the ratification
of a treaty which llis Catholic Majesty had
} “ On riemontre en droit naturel, que celui
qui proniet a qiiclqu’uu hii couture un veritable
droit d’exiger la r.liosc promise ; et que par con
sequent, ne |ioint garder une promesse pnrfaitc,
e'est violer le droit d’autrui, e’est une injustice,
uussi manifesto, que cello de depouillcr qnel-
qil’un de son bien. Toute la trunquillite, le bou-
heur ct In surete ilu genre huiiliiiu repusent sur
la justice, sur I'otiiigulinn de respecter les droits
d’autrui. Le respect des aiitrcs pour nos droits
de doinaiuu ct de propriete, fait la surete de nos
possessions ucluelies; la foi des promosses est
noire gorant pour lesclioses qui no peuv ent etre
livrees ou evecutees sur le cliainp. I’lus de su-
retc, plus dc commerce, entre les homines s'il.s
ne se croient point obliges de gnrder la foi, de
teiiir leur parole. Cette obligation est done
uussi necessuire, qu elle est naturellc et indubi
table, entre les nations qui vivent ensemble
dans I'etut de nature, el qui ue eoiuiaisscnt point
de superieiir sar la terre, pour luniateiiir I'nidre
et In pnix dims leur societe. Les nations et leur*
coiidurtenrt doiyeut done gardec inviolable-
Went leur proinesses, ct lour Iruites. Cette
grand verity quoique trop sou vent negligee,
dans la pratique, est gonei'idemeiil recoiitiue de
toute« les miUor.i. tlv. 2, cU. 12, $ 19a,'
The duke, solemnly prontb.i u, so tl.nl it might he ex
changed within six months from the date of
its signature, or sooner, if possible, was with
held merely to give time to His Catholic
Majesty to examine il; and this treaty was
the result of a twenty years’ negotiation, in
which every article anil subject contained in
it had been debated and sifted, to the utmost
satiety, between the parties, both at Wash
ington and Madrid; a treaty in which the
stipulations hy the Spanish Minister had
been sanctioned hy successive references of
very point to his own government, & were,
hy the formal admission of your own note,
fully w itliin the. compass of his instructions.
if, under the feeling of such a procedure
on the part of the Spanish government, the
Minister of the United States appealed to
the just rights of his country in expressions
suited more to the sense of its wrongs than
to the courtesies of European diplomacy,
nothing had till then occurred which could
have restrained your government from ask
ing of him any explanation which could be.
necessary for fixing its determination upon
the ratification. No explanation was asked
of him.
Nearly two months afterwards, on the
1 nth of August, Mr. Forsyth was informed
that the King would not come to a final de
cision upon the ratification, without previ
ously entering into several explanations with
the government of the U. States, to some of
which that government had given rise; and
that His Majesty had charged a person pos
sessed of his'full confidence, who vcotAd forth
with make known lo the United States His
Majesty’s intentions. Mr. Forsyth offered
himself tn give every explanation which
could he justly required; hut your govern
ment declined receiving them from him, as
signing to him the shortness of the time ; a
reason altogether different from that which
you now alledge, of the disrespectful cha
racter of his communications.
From the 10th of August till tlie lrith of
the last month, a period of more than eight
months passed over, during which no infor
mation was given hy your government of
the nature of the explanations which would
be required. The government of the United
States, hy a forbearance perhaps unexam
pled in human history, lias patiently waited
for your arrival, always ready to give, in
candor and sincerity, every explanation that
could with any propriety he demanded.—
What then must have been the sentiments
of the President upon finding, hy your note
of the I4tli ultimo, (hat, inslend of explana
tions, His Catholic Majesty has instructed
you to demand the negotiation of another
treaty, and to call upon the United States
for stipulations derogatory to thoir honor,
and incompatible with their Julies as an pi-
dependent nation ? What must lie the feel
ings of this nation to learn that, when called
upon to state, vv hether you were the bearer
of His Catholic Majesty’s ratification of the
treaty, to be exchanged upon the explana
tions demanded being given, you explicitly
answered that you were not i And, when
required to sav whether you arc authorized,
as a substitute for the ratification, to give the
pledge of immediate possession of the terri
tory, from which die acknowledged just
claims of the citizens ofthe United States
were stipulated to be indemnified, you still
answer that you are not, but refer us back
to a solemn promise of the King, already
pledged before in the full power to your
predecessor, and to a ratification, as soon as
possible ; already stipulated in vain hy the
treaty which lie, in full conformity to his
instructions, had signed ?
The. ratification of that treaty ran now no
longer bo accepted by this Government,
without the concurrence of a constitutional
majority of the Senate ofthe United States,
to whom it must lie again referred . Yete-
ven this promise, you were, by my letter of
the ddinst. informed that, rather than aban
don the last hope of obtaining the fulfilment
of His Catholic Majesty’s promise, already
given, the President would, so far as was
constitutionally within his power, yet ac-
eept.
The assurances which you had given me
in the first personal conference between us,
of your own entire satisfaction with the ex
planations given you upon all the points on
which you had been instructed to ask them,
would naturally have led to the expectation
that the promise which you was authorized
to give would at least not be withheld.—
From your letter ofthe 5th instant, howev
er, it appears that no discretion lias been left
you, to pledge even His Majesty’s promise
of ratification, in the event of >mir being
yourself satisfied with the explanations upon
all tlie points desired : that the only promise
you can give, is conditional, and the condi
tion a point upon which your government,
when they prescribed it, could not but know
it was impossible that the United States
should comply; a condition incompatible
with their independence, their neutrality,
their justice, and their honor.
It was also a condition which llis Catho
lic Majesty had not tlie shadow of a right to
prescribe. Tlie treaty had been signed hy
M r. Onis with a full knowledge that no such
engagementas thatcotenipluted hy it, would
ever he acceded to by the American govern
ment, a.id after long and unwearied efforts
loobtaiii it. The differences between the U.
States and Spain had no connection with the
war between Spain and South America.—
The object of the treaty was to settle the
boundaries, and adjust and provide for the
claims between your nation, and ours ; and
Spain at no time could have a right to re
quire that any stipulation concerning the
contest between her and her colonies should
lie connected w ith it. As His Catholic Ma
jesty could not justly require it, during the
negociatiou of tnat treaty, still less could it
afford a justification for withholding his pro
mised ratification after it was concluded.
The propositi, which, at a prior period,
had been made hy the government of the
United States to some of the principal pow
ers of Europe, for a recognition, in concert,
of the independence of llucuas Ayres, was
founded, as 1 have observed to you, upon
an opinion then and still entertained, that
this recognition must and would, at uo very
remote period, he. made hy Spain herself;
that the joint acknowledgment hy several of
the principal powers of the world at the
same time, might probably induce Spain the
sooner to accede to that necessity, in which
she must ultimately acquiesce, and would
thereby hasten an event propitious to her
own interests, hy terminating a struggle in
which she is wasting her strength and resour
ces, w ithout a possibility of success ; an c-
vent ardently to he desired by e very friend
of humanity, effiicted by the continual hor
rors of a war, cruel and sanguinary almost
beyond example ; an event not only desi
rable to the unhappy people w ho ure suffer
ing the complicated distresses and calamities
of this war, hut to all the nations having re
lations of amity and of commerce with them.
This proposal, founded upon such motives,
far from giving to Spain the right to claim
ot the United Stales an engagement not to
recognize the South American governments,
ought to have bran considered hy Fpalr. as
a proof at once, of tbe moderation and dis,
cretion of the United States: as evidence of
their disposition to discard ail selfish or ex
clusive views in the adoption of a measure
which they deemed wise and just in itself
but most likely to prove efficacious, hy a
common adoption of it, in a spirit entirely
pacific, in concert with other nations, rather
than hy a precipitate resort to it, on the part
of the United States alone. 1
The conditional promise therefore, now
offered hy you, instead of the positive one
which you have declared yourself authoriz
ed to give, cunnot be accepted hy the Pre
sident, and I am constrained to observe,
that ho can consider the procedure of your
government in thus providing you with pow
ers and instructions utterly inefficient for
the conclusion of tlie ncgociation with which
you are charged, in no other light than as
proceeding from a determination on its part,
still to protract and baffle, its final .successful
issue. Under these circumstances he deems
il his duty to submit tlie correspondence
which has passed between us since your ar
rival, to the consideration of the Congress
ofthe United States, to whom it will belong
to decide how far the United States can yet
consistently with their duties to themselves,
and the rights of their citizens, authoize tlie
further delay requested in your note of the
5th inst.
In the conclusion of that note, you have
remarked, alluding to a great change which
appears to have taken place since your de
parture from Madrid, in the Government of
Spain, that this circumstance alone would
impose on you tiie obligation of giving uo
greater latitude to your promise previous to
your receiving new instructions. HI have
understood you right, yotir intention is to
remark, that this circumstance alone would
restrain you in any event from giving with
out new instructions the unconditional pro
mise of ratification, which, in a former note,
you had declared yourself authorized in the
name of your Sovereign to give. This seems
to he equivalent to a declaration that you
consider vour powers themselves in the ex
tent to which they were entrusted to you,
as suspended hy the events to which you
thus refer. If 1 am mistaken in taking this
as your meaning, will you have the goodness'
to inform me how far you do consider yuur
powers affected hy the present state of your
information from Spain ?
Please to accept the assurance of my dis
tinguished consideration.
JOHN QUINCY ADAMS.
Mr. Gallatin to the Secretary of State.
Furis, February 16, 1H20.
Sir: General Vives, the new Minister of
Spain to the United States, arrived at Paris
on the 11 th instant, and left it on the Hth,
for London, with the intention to embark
at Liverpool, in the New-York packet, which
will sail on the 1st day of March.
Mr. Pasquicr, after having seen him, invi
ted me to an interview on the Hth,and said
that he was in hopes that tlie differences
might still he adjusted. Gen. Vives had told
him that the principal points with Spain
were, that the honor of the crown should be
saved [mis a couverl) in the business of the
grants, and to receive satisfactory evidence
of our intention to preserve a fair neutrality
in the colonial war. Mr. Pasquier had ob
served to him that it would be a matter of
deep regret that private interest should pre
vent the conclusion of such un important ar
rangement, and that when it was dear that
there had been ut least a misunderstanding
on the subject, the King’s dignity could not
he injured by a resumption of the grants, or
hy an exchange for other lands, lie seem
ed to think that this would be arranged, and
asked me what I thought wc could do re
specting the other point ? I answered that
the fullest reliance might be placed on the
fairness of our neutrality, and, that I was
really at a loss to know what could be add
ed to the measures the United States had al
ready adopted to enforce it. Mr. Pasquier
gave rue to understand that if there was any
defect, however trifling, in our laws, find that
was amended, it would probably he suffici
ent to satisfy tlie pride of Spain, as there
now appeared a reaLdcsire to ratify, provi
ded it could be dip without betraying a
glaring inconsistency; He had ex pressed to
General Vives his opinion ofthe improprie
ty of asking from the United States any pro
mise not to recognize the independence of
the insurgent colonies, and had told him
that, on that subject, Spain could only rely
on the moral effect which a solemn treaty,
accommodating all her differences with the
United States, would have on their future
proceedings.
I expressed my hope that the explanation
which General Vives was instructed to give
on the subject of the grant, nod to askon that
of our neutrality, might be such as to remove
all the existing difficulties. But it was most
important that he should arrive in the Uni
ted States before the adjournment of Con
gress, and that lie should be the hearer ofthe
lung's raliiicntoin of the treaty, so that, il
every lliing was arranged, thbse ratification*
might be at once exchanged at Washington.
If that was not done, the President would
have no more security that (he King would
ratify General Vives’ than Mr. Oms’ acts;
and it was impossible to suppose that he
would run the risk of a second disappoint
ment. This observation forcibly struck Mr.
Pasquier, who said that he would make fur
ther enquiries on that point.
I saw, the same evening, Ihe Spanish Am
bassador, at this court, and, in the course of
a short conversation, he suggested that the
grants in dispute might he set aside, the gran
tees not having fulfilled certain conditions or
formalities ; and, after acknowledging tht*'
General Vives was out the bearer of the
King’s ratification, lie hinted that lie was
authorized to give the United States satis
factory security that Spaiu would fulfil her
cugagcinents.
Ou the 18th I dined at the Minister o!
Foreign Affairs, with General Vives, who
repeat! d to me, in substance, what he had
said to Mr. Pasquier. J told him that the
President would judge of the explanations
he had to give on the subject ofthe grants ,
that he might rely on the determination of the
U. States to preserve their neutrality,and not
less on the manner in which the laws lor en
forcing it were executed, than on the tenor
of those laws, which I observed were, and
had always been, more full and efficient than
those of either England or France, on the
same subject; that I could not say whether
the question of recognizing the independence
of the insurgent colonies would he agitate
during the present session of Congress, but
that if it wa 0 , the decision would probably
have taken plac«: before bis arrival.
1 then repeated what I had said to Mr-
Pasquier respecting the importance of In-
being authorised to exchange the ratification
ofthe treaty. He answered, that although
lie w.is not, he could, in case ut an arrange
ment, give satisfactory security to the L mu
States, and that it would consist in consent
ing that they should take, immediate posses
sion of Florida, without wailing lor the m
location of the treaty.