Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 8.djvu/267

 TREATY WITH SPAIN. 1819. 255 Con esta mira, han nombrado, Su. M. C"- al E*"*°· S°’· D"- Luis D1: Ours, Gonzales, Lopea y Vara, Senor de la Villa de Rayaces, Regidor perpetuo del Ayuntamiento de la Ciudad de Salamanca, Caballero Gran Cruz de la real Orden Americana de Isabel la Catolica, y de la Decoracion del Lis de la Vendea, Caballero Pensionista de la Real y distinguida Orden Espanola de Carlos III, Ministro Vocal de la Supreme. Asamblea de dicha Rl. Orden, de su Consejo, su Secretario con exercicio de Decretos, y su Enviado Extraordinario y Ministro Plenipotenciario cerca de los Estados Unidos de America: Y el Presidente de los Estados Unidos, A D"· Juan Quincy Amtms, Secretario de Estado de los mismos Estados Unidos. Y ambos Plenipotenciarios, despues de haver cangeado sus Poderes, han ajustado y firmado los articulos siguientes: ART. 1. Habra una paz solida e inviolable y una amistad sincera entre S. M. C¤· sus sucesores y subditos, y los Estados Unidos y sus ciudadanos, in cxcepcion de personas ui lugares. ART. 2. S. M. C*· cede 5. los Estados Unidos, en toda propiedad y soberania, todos los territorros que le pertenecen, situados al Este del Misisipi, conocidos bajo el nombre de Florida Occidental y Florida Oriental. Son comprehendidos en este articulo las yslas adyaoentes dependientes de dichas dos provincias, los sitios, plazes publicas, terrenos valdios, edificios publicos, fortilicaciones, casernas y otros edilicios, que no sean propiedad de algun individuo particular, los archivos y documentos di~ rectamente relativos 5. la propiedad y soberania de las mismas dos provincias. Dichos archivos y documentos se entregarém it los comisarios {1 oliciales de los Estados Unidos dcbidamente autorizados para recibirlos. ART. 3. La linea divisoria entre los dos paises al occidente del Misisipi, arrancara del Seno Mexicano, en la embodacura del Rio Sabina, en el Mar, property, remain undisturbed. Had Florida chanfged its sovereign by an act containing no stipulation respecting the property of individuals, the right o property in all those who became subjects or citizens of the new government, would have been unarlected by the change. It would have remained the same as under the ancient sovereign. United States u. Pere eman, 7 eters, 51. The language of the second article of the treaty between the United States and Spain, of 22d February 1819, by whic Florida was ceded to the United States, conforms to this general principle. Ibid. The eighth article of the treaty must be intended to stipulate expressly for the security to private property, which the laws and usages of nations would, wit out express stipulation, have con erred. No construction which would impair that security, further than its positive words require, would seem to be admissible. Without it, the titles of individuals would remain as valid under the new government, as they were under the old. And those titles, so far at least as they were consummated, might be asserted in the courts of the United States, independently of this article. _ The treaty was drawn up in the Spanish as well as in the English languages. Both are original, and were unquestionablylinten ed_by the parties to be identical. The Spanish as been translated; and it to now understood t at the artic e expressed in that langyagc rs, that "the grants shall renratn ratilied and confirmed to the persons in possession of them, to the same extent," &.c., thus conforming exactly to the universally received lawo nations. Ibid. _ _ _ If the English and Spanish part cnn, without violence, be made to agree, that construction which e tublishes this conformity ought to prevail. Ibid. _ _ _ No violence is done to the langlpage of the treaty by a construction which conforms the English and Spanish to each other. Althou the words_"shall be rattlied and confirmed," are properly words of contract, stipulatin for some lhture legislation, they are not necessarily so. 'Ijhey may import that " they shall be rathed and confirmed" by force of the instrument itselt When it is observed that rn the counterpart of the some treaty, executed at the same time, by the same parties, they are used m this sense, the construction is proper, if not unavoidable. Ibid. _ _ _ ln the case of Fo ter v. Neilson,2Peters,253, the supreme court considered those words importing a contract. The Spanish part of the treaty was not then brought into view, and rt was than supposed there was nc variance between them. It was not supposed that there was even a formal dirlerence of expression in the same instrument, drawn up in the language of each_ party. Had this circumstance been known, it is believed it would have produced the construction which is now given to the article. Ibid.