54 AVES ISLAND. 



commissioner at Grhent, wrote to the Secretary of State, making ad- 

 missions against the title of the State of Massachusetts to territory on 

 her northeastern boundary. His letter was published, and the British 

 government afterwards brought it up against the United States in the 

 arbitration before the King of the Netherlands. (See letter, p. 24, 

 British statement, note; and see also Mr. Gallatin's reply, in the most 

 sarcastic style and severest terms, pp. 94-5, Am. statement.) 



It is worthy of note, also, that in this reply Mr. Gallatin denies the 

 right of the federal government to cede any portion of the territory of 

 a State. (See Northeastern Boundary Document, cited above.) 



Another case was when Mr. Pinckney, our minister to Spain, in 

 179-, made an admission with respect to the boundary of Louisiana 

 and West Florida, which Mr. Pizarro, Spanish Secretary of State, 

 cited to Mr. Erving, our minister, in 180-. Mr. Erving replied that 

 the admission was of no validity, being his own opinion merely, not 

 authorized by the government to be made, except upon terms of ad- 

 justment then proposed and not accepted, and therefore was of no 

 force. 



The third case was that of Mr. Andrew Ellicott, United States com- 

 missioner to run the boundary between us and the Spanish provinces 

 under 'the treaty of 1795. He made an admission respecting the same 

 boundary between Louisiana and West Florida, which was also cited 

 against us by the Spanish government ; the reply to which was, that 

 he was not authorized to make any such admissions, and that it was 

 his mere private opinion, and was of no consequence. (See Am. State 

 Papers, Tit. Foreign Belations, vol. 3, p. 520, &c.; Bynk. as to Spon- 

 sio, p. 223, and Wheat. Int. Law, p. 322, &c., and p. 329, (citing 

 Ulpian ;) Wheat, p. 473, § 24. Even in time of war the commander 

 of a fort cannot stipulate for its surrender and perpetual cession — 

 Yattel, lib. 5, § 156, p. 193; Kliiber, § 142.) 



We have a statute prohibiting a citizen from negotiating, corre- 

 sponding, &c., with foreign governments on diplomatic subjects. (Act 

 of June 30, 1799, 1 Statutes at Large, p. 603.) 



VXIII. MISREPRESENTATION AND FRAUD ^TETIATE ALL CONTRACTS, ETC. 



Misrepresentations and fraud in all cases, either between individuals 

 or between an individual and a government, vitiate contracts, agree- 

 ments, &c., and destroy the effect of acts or admissions procured from 

 an individual thereby. (See Vattel, lib. 2, c. 12, §§ 157-8-9 ; Kliiber, 

 § 143 ; Schmalz, Eurp. Folks R. v. pp. 53, 54 ; Grotius, lib. 2, c. 17, 

 §§18,19.) _ .... 



Signature to a written promise or agreement, written in a foreign 

 language, and obtained by misrepresentation of its purport, is void, in 

 all cases. 



'' Consent must not have been given in error, or produced by deceit, 

 either by misrepresentation (suggestio falsi) or by concealment of im- 

 portant facts, {suppressio veri.") 2 Phill. §49, p. 62. (See Puff., 

 p. 22, lib. 7, tit. 6 ; Ibid., p. 30, lib. 3, § 13 ; S. 2, p. 227, lib. 3, o. 

 6, § 6, 7 ; Ibid., p. 280, §§ 7, 8, p. 281, notes 1 & 2; Story's Comm. 

 on Eq., § 201, citing several cases.) 



