310 BURR— THE TREATY-MAKING POWER [Apdi^o, 



from a grant by the King of Spain dated in 1804, subsequent to the 

 treaty of cession of Louisiana. The first question at issue was the 

 extent of the cession. It was claimed that this did not extend to 

 what was caUed West Florida, and it was shown that this had long 

 been a controverted point on which Spain, France, and the United 

 States had disputed until adjusted by the treaty with Spain signed 

 February 22, 18 19. It was urged that this dispute should now be 

 judicially determined. The Acts of Congress respecting this terri- 

 tory including West Florida are recited by the Chief Justice, who 

 then disposes of this first issue in the following words: 



"If those departments which are entrusted with the foreign intercourse 

 of the nation, which assert and maintain its interests against foreign powers, 

 have unequivocally asserted its rights of dominion over a country of which 

 it is in possession, and which it claims under a treaty; if the Legislature has 

 acted on the construction thus asserted, it is not in its own Courts that this 

 construction is to be denied. A question like this respecting the boundaries 

 of nations, is, as has been truly said, more a political than a legal question, 

 and in its discussion, the Courts of every country must respect the pro- 

 nounced will of the Legislature."^"^ 



The second point of controversy in this case was the effect to be 

 given the treaty of 1819 above referred to. Did it or did it not, 

 the Chief Justice proceeds to consider, operate to confirm all grants 

 made by the King of Spain after the treaty of 1800 and prior to 

 January 24th, 1818. The language of the treaty on this point was as 

 follows: 



" All the grants of land made before the 24th of January, 1818, by his 

 Catholic Majesty, or by his lawful authorities, in the said territories ceded 

 by his Majesty to the United States, shall be ratified and confirmed to the 

 persons in possession of the lands, to the same extent that the same grants 

 would be valid if the territories had remained under the dominion of his 

 Catholic Majesty." 



Prior to the execution of this treaty, Congress had passed an act 

 purporting to annul such grants, and after its execution by a series 

 of acts it confirmed certain grants, among which was not, however, 

 the plaintiff's. After quoting the extract from the treaty given 

 above, the Chief Justice said : 



"Do these words act directly on the grants, so as to give validity to those 



"^Ibid., p. 309. 



