NOVEMBER, 1803.]

The Louisiana Treaty.

[SENATE.

to pass the laws necessary to carry it into ef fect; and as the vote which I am about to give may not at first seem to conform itself to this opinion, I feel an obligation imposed upon me to state, in as concise a manner as I can, the reasons why I withhold my assent from the passage of this bill.

of Louisiana into the Union, I would rather see it given to France, to Spain, or to any other nation of the earth, upon the mere condition that no citizen of the United States should ever settle within its limits, than to see the territory sold for a hundred millions of dollars, and we retain the sovereignty. But however dangerous the possession of Louisiana might prove to us, There are two acts necessary to be performed I do not presume to say that the retention of it to carry the present treaty into effect-one by would not have been very convenient to France, the French Government, the other by our own. and we know that at the time of the mission of They are to deliver us a fair and effectual posMr. Monroe, our Administration had never session of the ceded territory; and then, and thought of the purchase of Louisiana, and that not till then, are we to pay the purchase money. nothing short of the fullest conviction on the We have already authorized the President to part of the First Consul that he was on the very receive possession. This co-operation on our eve of a war with England; that this being the part was requisite to enable the French to commost defenceless point of his possessions, if such ply with the stipulation they had made; they they could be called, was the one at which the could not deliver unless somebody was appointBritish would first strike, and that it must in- ed to receive. In this view of the subject, the evitably fall into their hands, could ever have question which presents itself to my mind is, induced his pride and ambition to make the who shall judge whether the French Governsale. He judged wisely, that he had better sell ment does, or does not, faithfully comply with it for as much as he could get than lose it en- the previous condition? The bill on your table tirely. And I do say that under existing cir- gives to the President this power. I am for cumstances, even supposing that this extent of our retaining and exercising it ourselves. I may territory was a desirable acquisition, fifteen be asked, why not delegate this power to the millions of dollars was a most enormous sum to President? Sir, I answer by inquiring why we give. Our Commissioners were negotiating in should delegate it? To us it properly belongs; Paris-they must have known the relative sit- and, unless some advantage will be derived to uation of France and England—they must have the United States, it shall not be transferred known at the moment that a war was unavoid- with my consent. Congress will be in session able between the two countries, and they knew at the time that the delivery of the ceded territhe pecuniary necessities of France and the na-tory takes place; and if we should then be satval power of Great Britain. These imperious circumstances should have been turned to our advantage, and if we were to purchase, should have lessened the consideration. Viewing, Mr. President, this subject in any point of lighteither as it regards the territory purchased, the high consideration to be given, the contract itself, or any of the circumstances attending it, I see no necessity for precipitating the passage of this bill; and if this motion for postponement should fail, and the question on the final passage of the bill be taken now, I shall certainly vote against it.

The further consideration of the bill was postponed until to-morrow.

isfied that the French have executed with fidelity that part of the treaty which is incumbent upon them first to perform, I pledge myself to vote for the payment of the purchase money. This appears to me, arguing upon general principles, to be the course which ought to be pursued, even supposing there were attending this case no particular difficulties. But in this special case are there not among the archives of the Senate sufficient documents, and which have been withheld from the House of Representatives, to justify an apprehension that the French Government was not invested with the capacity to convey this property to us, and that we shall not receive that kind of possession which is stipulated for by the treaty? I am not permitted, by the order of this body, to make any other than this general reference to those documents. Suffice it to say that they have strongly impressed me with an opinion that, even if possession is rendered to us, the territory will come into our hands without any title to justify our holding it.

Mr. JACKSON.-Mr. President: The honorable gentleman (Mr. WELLS) has said that the French have no title, and, having no title herself, we can derive none from her. Is not, I ask, the King of Spain's proclamation, declaring the cession of Louisiana to France, and his orders to his Governor and officers to deliver it to France, a title? Do nations give any other? I believe the honorable gentleman can find no solitary instance of feofment or conveyance between

SENATE.]

The Louisiana Treaty.

[NOVEMBER, 1803.

States. The treaty of St. Ildefonso was the | and armed with the bare proclamation of the groundwork of the cession, and whatever might President, would go near to take them; the inhave been the terms to be performed by France, habitants by hundreds would flock to his standthe King of Spain's proclamation and orders ard, the very Spanish force itself would assist have declared to all the world that they were in their reduction; it is composed principally of complied with. The honorable gentleman, the Irish brigade and Creoles-the former dishowever, insists that there is no consideration affected, and the latter the dregs of mankind. expressed in the treaty, and therefore it must With two or three squadrons of dragoons, and be void; if the honorable gentleman will but the same number of companies of infantry, not look attentively at the ninth article, I am per- a doubt ought to exist of the total conquest of suaded he will perceive one: the conventions East Florida by an officer of tolerable talents. are made part of the treaty; they are declared Exclusive, however, of the loss of the Floridas, to have execution in the same manner, as if to use the language of a late member of Conthey had been inserted in the treaty; they are gress, the road to Mexico is now open to us, to be ratified in the same form, and at the same which, if Spain acts in an amicable way, I wish time, so that the one shall not be distinct from may, and hope will, be shut, as respects the the other. What inference can possibly be United States, for ever. For these reasons, I drawn, but that the payments to be made by think, sir, Spain will avoid a war, in which she them were full consideration for Louisiana? But has nothing to gain and every thing to lose. the honorable gentleman lays stress on that part Mr. President, the honorable gentleman apof the treaty which declares that "the First pears to be extremely apprehensive of vesting Consul of the French Republic, desiring to give the powers delegated by the bill, now on its to the United States a strong proof of his friend-passage, in the President, and wishes to retain ship, doth hereby cede to the United States it in the Legislature. Is this a Legislative or an the territory," &c.; inferring from thence that Executive business? Assuredly, in my mind, our title rests on the friendship of Buonaparte of the latter nature. The President gave inalone. Sir, let my opinion of the present Gov-structions for, and, with our consent, ratified the ernment of France be what it may, and I con- treaty. We have given him the power to take fess it is not very favorable, Buonaparte, by the possession, which his officers are at this moconsent of the nation, is placed at its head; he ment doing; and surely, as the ostensible party, is the organ through which the will of the na- the representative of the sovereignty to whom tion is expressed, and is and must be respected France will alone look, he ought to possess the as such by all other Powers. No nation has a power of fulfilling our part of the contract. right to interfere with the rule or police of Gentlemen, indeed, had doubted, on a former another. It is enough that the nation wills it, occasion, the propriety of giving the President and Buonaparte's act is the act of the whole the power of taking possession and organizing nation, which cannot recall it, even if Buona-a temporary government, which every inferior parte should cease to govern and another form of government be adopted. Last session we were impressed with the necessity of taking immediate possession of the island of New Orleans in the face of two nations, and now we entertain doubts if we can combat the weakest of those Powers; and we are further told we are going to sacrifice the immense sum of fifteen millions of dollars, and have to go to war with Spain for the country afterwards; when, last session, war was to take place at all events, and no costs were equal to the object. Gentle men seem to be displeased, because we have procured it peaceably, and at probably ten times less expense than it would have cost us had we taken forcible possession of New Orleans alone, which, I am persuaded, would have involved us in a war which would have saddled us with a debt of from one to two hundred millions, and perhaps have lost New Orleans, and the right of deposit, after all. I again repeat, sir, that I do not believe that Spain will venture war with the United States. I believe she dare not; if she does, she will pay the costs. The Floridas will be immediately ours; they will almost take themselves. The inhabitants pant for the blessings of your equal and wise Government; they ardently long to become a part of the United States. An officer, duly authorized,

officer, in case of conquest or cession, from the general to the subaltern, if commanding, has

a

right to do; but I little expected these doubts after we had gone so far. For my part, sir, I have none of those fears. I believe the President will be as cautious as ourselves, and the bill is as carefully worded as possible; for the money is not to be paid until after Louisiana shall be placed in our possession.

Mr. WRIGHT.-Mr. President, I presumed from the observations of the honorable gentleman from Delaware, (Mr. WELLS,) that he had not minutely attended to the provisions of this bill, on which the transfer of this stock is made expressly to depend. The treaty has in the most guarded manner secured us in the possession of the ceded territory, as a condition precedent to the payment of the purchase money, and this bill has expressly provided that no part of the stock shall be transferred till the possession stipulated by the treaty shall have been obtained. Not such a possession as the gentleman has said the President may be satisfied with-" the delivery of a twig and turf, or the knocker of a door." The treaty has defined the possession intended: it is the possession of Louisiana, the island and city of New Orleans, with the forts and arsenals, the troops having been withdrawn from thence. But, sir, from his remarks, it would seem that

NOVEMBER, 1803.]

The Louisiana Treaty.

[SENATE.

his objections to this bill had been predicated on | Administration admitted that this incorporation his want of confidence in the Executive, as he could not be effected without an amendment of has expressed his fears that the stock would be the constitution; and he conceived that this netransferred, before the prerequisite conditions cessary amendment could not be made in the had been performed. He says, we ought to be ordinary mode by the concurrence of two-thirds satisfied that the possession stipulated by the of both Houses of Congress, and the ratification treaty shall have been delivered up before we by the Legislatures of three-fourths of the sevpass this bill. Has he forgot that, by the con- eral States. He believed the assent of each institution, the President is to superintend the exe- dividual State to be necessary for the admission cution of the law? Or has he forgot that trea- of a foreign country as an associate in the ties are the supreme law of the land? Or why, Union; in like manner as in a commercial house, while he professes to respect this constitution, the consent of each member would be necessary does he oppose the commission of the execution to admit a new partner into the company; and of this law to that organ of the Government to whether the assent of every State to such an inwhich it has been assigned by the constitution? | dispensable amendment were attainable, was Why, I ask, does he distrust the President? Has uncertain. But the articles of a treaty were nehe not been, throughout the whole of this busi- cessarily related to each other; the stipulation ness, very much alive to the peaceful acquisition in one article being the consideration for anof this immense territory, and the invaluable other. If, therefore, in respect to the Louisiana waters of the Mississippi? a property which, Treaty, the United States fail to execute, and but the other day, we were told was all-impor- within a reasonable time, the engagement in the tant, and so necessary to our political existence third article, (to incorporate that territory into that if it was not obtained the Western people the Union,) the French Government will have would sever themselves from the Union. This a right to declare the whole treaty void. We property, for which countless millions were then must then abandon the country, or go to war to proposed to be expended, and the best blood of maintain our possession. But it was to prevent our citizens to be shed, and which then was to war that the pacific measures of the last winter be had at all hazards, per fas aut per nefas, seems were adopted-they were to "lay the foundanow to have lost its worth, and it would seem tion for future peace." as if some gentlemen could not be satisfied with the purchase, because our title was not recorded in the blood of its inhabitants. But that this is not the wish of the American people, has been unequivocally declared by their immediate representatives in Congress, as well as by this House, who had each expressed their approbation of the peaceful title we had acquired, by majorities I thought not to be misunderstood. And the gentleman, although he voted for the ratification of the treaty, now again calls on us to investigate the title. It is certainly too late.

"The

Mr. PICKERING said, if he entertained the opinion just now expressed by the gentleman from Delaware, (Mr. WELLS,) of the binding force of all treaties made by the President and Senate, he should think it to be his duty to vote for the bill now under consideration. constitution, and the laws of the United States made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land."-But a treaty to be thus obligatory, must not contravene the constitution, nor contain any stipulations which transcend the powers therein given to the President and Senate. The treaty between the United States and the French Republic, professing to cede Louisiana to the United States, appeared to him to contain such an exceptionable stipulation-a stipulation which cannot be executed by any authority now existing. It is declared in the third article, that "the inhabitants of the ceded territory shall be incorporated in the Union of the United States." But neither the President and Senate, nor the President and Congress, are competent to such an act of incorporation. He believed that our

Mr. P. had never doubted the right of the United States to acquire new territory, either by purchase or by conquest, and to govern the territory so acquired as a dependent province; and in this way might Louisiana have become a territory of the United States, and have received a form of government infinitely preferable to that to which its inhabitants are now subject.

Mr. DAYTON.-As the honorable gentleman from Massachusetts has quoted what was suggested by me in a former debate, to deduce from it an inference which the information I gave can by no means warrant, I must be allowed the liberty of correcting him. When I said that there existed an essential difference between the French and Spanish officers at New Orleans as to the real boundaries of the province of Louisiana, I did not mean to insinuate that this disagreement extended so far as an opposition to the French taking possession. It was a question of limits only, varying, however, so much in extent as would have produced a serious altercation between those two countries, although closely allied.

The Spanish Governor had taken it upon himself to proclaim that the province_lately ceded and about to be given over to France would be confined on the east of the Mississippi to the river Iberville, and the lakes Maurepas and Pontchartrain, or in other words to the island of New Orleans; but the French Prefect on the contrary declared that he neither had nor would give his assent to the establishment of those limits, which would be regarded no longer than until the arrival of their troops.

The same gentleman (Mr. PICKERING) has said that the advocates of this measure seem to

SENATE.]

The Louisiana Treaty.

rely much more upon their power than upon their right, and in this assertion I am compelled to say that he has done us very great injustice. The title of the French is founded upon the often quoted treaty of St Ildefonso, confirmed by the royal order signed by the King of Spain himself, so lately as the 15th October, 1802, directing the delivery of the "colony of Louisiana and its dependencies as well as of the city and island of New Orleans, without any exception, to General Victor, or other officer duly authorized by that Republic to take charge of the said delivery."

When at New Orleans in July last, I obtained from the best source a translated copy of that royal order, and can aver that it absolutely directs possession to be given without reservation or condition. It is not, and cannot be, denied that the lately ratified treaty of Paris transfers to us completely all the title acquired by France in virtue of the first treaty and order alluded to. We have, then, most incontestably, the right of possession, and our object now is, by passing the bill before us to obtain the possession itself, which we can certainly never effect, consistently with good faith, if the reasonings and objections of my honorable friends from Delaware and Massachusetts should prevail. We are asked by the same gentlemen what will be the consequence if it shall appear that the royal order has been revoked? I answer, first, that it is not in the least degree probable, for neither of them pretend to have heard of such revocation, nor is it intimated in the confidential communications before the Senate. But admitting for argument's sake that it were revoked, of what avail could it be against a third party, who had in the mean time become a bona fide purchaser? Shall one nation give to another a written, formal evidence of transfer of territory, and revoke it at pleasure, especially after a third shall have been tempted and induced by that very evidence of title to contract for the purchase of it? Would an act so fraudulent be countenanced between individuals in a court of equity? Could it be justified between nations in a high court of honor? The honorable gentleman from Delaware has taken a more delicate ground of objection. He has insinuated that there exists in the knowledge of the Senate, the evidence of a serious opposition to our possessing that country, which, if known to the other branch of the Legislature, would probably have defeated this bill in its progress there. Allusions artfully made in this manner to documents communicated under the injunction of secrecy, place us in an embarrassing situation. Forbidden by our rules to expose the papers referred to, even in argument, we can only declare what impressions they have made upon ourselves. Every Senator must understand him, every one must have heard and read, and weighed deliberately the contents of those documents, and, for myself, I am free to avow my belief, that, if known to every member of the other House, they would have had no effect

[NOVEMBER, 1803. against this bill, but would rather have quickened and ensured its progress, for such is the influence they have upon me.

Mr. TAYLOR.—There have been, Mr. President, two objections made against the treaty; one that the United States cannot constitutionally acquire territory; the other, that the treaty stipulates for the admission of a new State into the Union; a stipulation which the treaty-making power is unable to comply with. To these objections I shall endeavor to give answers not heretofore urged.

Before a confederation, each State in the Union possessed a right, as attached to sovereignty, of acquiring territory, by war, purchase, or treaty. This right must be either still possessed, or forbidden both to each State and to the General Government, or transferred to the General Government. It is not possessed by the States separately, because war and compacts with foreign powers and with each other are prohibited to a separate State; and no other means of acquiring territory exist. By depriving every State of the means of exercising the right of acquiring territory, the constitution has deprived each separate State of the right itself. Neither the means nor the right of acquiring territory are forbidden to the United States; on the contrary, in the fourth article of the constitution, Congress is empowered "to dispose of and regulate the territory belonging to the United States." This recognizes the right of the United States to hold territory. The means of acquiring territory consist of war and compact; both are expressly surrendered to Congress and forbidden to the several States; and no right in a separate State to hold territory without its limits is recognized by the constitution, nor any mode of effecting it possible, consistent with it. The means of acquiring and the right of holding territory, being both given to the United States, and prohibited to each State, it follows that these attributes of sovereignty once held by each State are thus transferred to the United States; and that, if the means of acquiring and the right of holding, are equivalent to the right of acquiring territory, then this right merged from the separate States to the United States, as indispensably annexed to the treaty-making power, and the power of making war; or, indeed, is literally given to the General Government by the constitution.

Having proved, sir, that the United States may constitutionally acquire, hold, dispose of, and regulate territory, the other objection to be considered is, whether the third article of the treaty does stipulate that Louisiana shall be erected into a State? It is conceded that the treaty-making power cannot, by treaty, erect a new State, however they may stipulate for it. I premise, that in the construction of this article, it is proper to recollect that the negotiators must be supposed to have understood our constitution. It became very particularly their duty to do so, because, in this article itself, they have recited" the principles of the constitu

[SENATE.

tion" as their guide. Hence, it is obvious, they | citizens of the United States. Is it not then abdid not intend to infringe, but to adhere to surd to suppose that the first member of this those principles; and therefore, if the article third article intended to admit Louisiana into will admit of a construction consistent with this the Union as a State, which would instantly presumable knowledge and intention of the ne- entitle the inhabitants to the benefit of the argotiators, the probability of its accuracy will ticle of the constitution declaring, that "the be greater than one formed in a supposition citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the that the negotiators were either ignorant of that privileges and immunities of citizens in the sevwhich they ought to have known, or that they eral States," and yet to have gone on to stipufraudulently professed a purpose which they late for citizenship, under the limitation "as really intended to defeat. The following con- soon as possible, according to the principles of struction is reconcilable with what the nego- the Federal Constitution," after it had been tiators ought to have known, and with what bestowed without limitation? Again, the they professed to intend. concluding member of the article is to bestow protection in the mean time;" incorporating this stipulation, and the stipulation for citizenship, with the construction which accuses the treaty of unconstitutionality, the article altogether must be understood thus: "The inhabitants of the ceded territory shall be taken into the Union of States, which will instantly give them all the rights of citizenship, after which they shall be made citizens as soon as possible; and after they are taken into the Union of States, they shall be protected in the interim between becoming a State in the Union, and being made citizens, in their liberty, property, and religion." By supposing the first member of the article to require that the inhabitants and their territory shall be incorporated in the Union, in the known and recognized political character of a Territory, these inconsistencies are avoided, and the article reconciled to the constitution, as understood by the opposers of the bill; the stipulation also for citizenship "as soon as possible" according to the principles of the constitution, and the delay meditated by these words, and the subsequent words "in the mean time," so utterly inconsistent with the instantaneous citizenship, which would follow an admission into the Union as a State, are both fully explained. Being incorporated in the Union as a Territory, and not as a State, a stipulation for citizenship became necessary; whereas it would have been unnecessary had the inhabitants been incorporated as a State, and not as a Territory. And as they were not to be invested with citizenship by becoming a State, the delay which would occur between the incorporation of the Territory into the Union and the arrival of the inhabitants to citizenship according to the principles of the constitution, under some uniform rule of naturalization, exhibited an interim which demanded the concluding stipulation, for "protection in the mean time for liberty, property, and religion." As a State of the Union, they would not have needed a stipulation for the safety of their "liberty, property and religion;" as a Territory, this stipulation would govern and restrain the undefined power of Congress to make "rules and regulations for Territories."

Recollect, sir, that it has been proved that the United States may acquire territory. Territory, so acquired, becomes from the acquisition itself a portion of the territories of the United States, or may be united with their territories without being erected into a State. A union of territory is one thing; of States, another. Both are exemplified by an actual existence. The United States possess territory, comprised in the union of territory, and not in the union of States. Congress is empowered to regulate or dispose of territorial sections of the Union, and have exercised the power; but it is not empowered to regulate or dispose of State sections of the Union. The citizens of these territorial sections are citizens of the United States, and they have all the rights of citizens of the United States; but such rights do not include those political rights arising from State compacts or governments, which are dissimilar in different States. Supposing the General Government or treaty-making power have no right to add or unite States and State citizens to the Union, yet they have a power of adding or uniting to it territory and territorial citizens of the United States. The territory is ceded by the first article of the treaty. It will no longer be denied that the United States may constitutionally acquire territory. The third article declares that the inhabitants of the ceded territory shall be incorporated in the Union of the United States." And these words are said to require the territory to be erected into a State. This they do not express, and the words are literally satisfied by incorporating them into the Union as a Territory, and not as a State. The constitution recognizes and the practice warrants an incorporation of a Territory and its inhabitants into the Union, without admitting either as a State. And this construction of the first member of the article is necessary to shield its two other members from a charge of surplusage, and even absurdity. For if the words "the inhabitants of the ceded territory shall be incorporated in the Union of the United States" intended that Louisiana and its inhabitants should become a State in the Union of States, there existed no reason for proceeding to stipulate that these same inhabitants should be made "citizens as soon as possible, according to the principles of the Federal Constitution." Their admission into the Union of States would have made them

Mr. TRACY.-Mr. President: I shall vote against this bill, and will give some of the reasons which govern my vote in this case.

It is well known that this bill is introduced