Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

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.