00000117 |
Previous | 117 of 568 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
9o CORRESPONDENCE AND PUBLIC PAPERS.
it was stipulated by the treaty of peace that the navigation of the Mississippi should be free to both
parties."
From this stipulation it is argued, as a natural and
necessary inference, that it was in the expectation and
intention of the parties that they should and would
both border, not only on the river, but also on the
navigable part of it.
This inference seems to be violent. A right freely to
navigate a bay, a strait, a sound, or a river is perfect
without, and does not necessarily presuppose the
dominion and property of lands adjacent to it.
But, although, from a right to navigate the river
Mississippi, a right to adjacent lands cannot be
inferred, yet, when that right is connected with the
circumstance that both parties were to be bounded by
a line terminating at the river, it is thought to be
thence presumable that the parties expected and
intended the said line would and should terminate at
a navigable part of it. They might or might not
have intended it. Whether they did or not can only
Jbe discovered from their concomitant words and
actions. On looking into the treaty for words indicating such intention, our search proves fruitless;
there are no such words in it, nor the least shadow
of a stipulation or declaration on the point. If we
review the plain and manifest design of the treaty
relative to boundaries, we find the idea of such intention uniformly contradicted. The treaty, in delineating the boundaries of the United States, passes from
the northwest angle of Nova Scotia to the head of
| Title | The correspondence and public papers of John Jay - 4 |
| Creator | Jay, John |
| Publisher | G.P. Putnam's Sons |
| Place of Publication | New York, London |
| Date | [1890-93] |
| Type | Books/Pamphlets |
| Title | 00000117 |
| Type | Books/Pamphlets |
| Transcript | 9o CORRESPONDENCE AND PUBLIC PAPERS. it was stipulated by the treaty of peace that the navigation of the Mississippi should be free to both parties." From this stipulation it is argued, as a natural and necessary inference, that it was in the expectation and intention of the parties that they should and would both border, not only on the river, but also on the navigable part of it. This inference seems to be violent. A right freely to navigate a bay, a strait, a sound, or a river is perfect without, and does not necessarily presuppose the dominion and property of lands adjacent to it. But, although, from a right to navigate the river Mississippi, a right to adjacent lands cannot be inferred, yet, when that right is connected with the circumstance that both parties were to be bounded by a line terminating at the river, it is thought to be thence presumable that the parties expected and intended the said line would and should terminate at a navigable part of it. They might or might not have intended it. Whether they did or not can only Jbe discovered from their concomitant words and actions. On looking into the treaty for words indicating such intention, our search proves fruitless; there are no such words in it, nor the least shadow of a stipulation or declaration on the point. If we review the plain and manifest design of the treaty relative to boundaries, we find the idea of such intention uniformly contradicted. The treaty, in delineating the boundaries of the United States, passes from the northwest angle of Nova Scotia to the head of |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| B |
|
| C |
|
| G |
|
| H |
|
| M |
|
| T |
|
| U |
|
| Y |
|
|
|
