Alexandria Daily Gazette, Commercial & Political

On the 27th of October 1807, a treaty was entered into at Fontainbleau, between the Emperor of France and Charles the presumptive King of Spain and really one of Napoleon's tools, the primary object which was, the partition of Portugal.

The partition of Portugal is in itself as iniquitous an act as the partition of Ireland although a mere suspicion of the latter being in contemplation could convulse the United States, and direct the whole fury of the rage against a nation as ignorant of the intention as ourselves; yet the positive knowledge that the former was expressly stipulated produced neither surprise nor censure. We would not be uncharitable, but to us it appears plain, that for this difference only one reason can be given.-- In the one case France is the acknowledged aggressor, in the other, suspicion was directed against England-a known violation of every principle of justice. of every right of independent nations by France, was viewed with the eye of calm indifference; a bare suspicion of a similar act by England, called forth the stern form of indignation from every would be patriot in the nation:

But it is not on account of the partition Portugal that we invite the public attention to this instrument. The treaty of Fontainebleau contained the following article:

"His Majesty the Emperor of the French and King of Italy, engages to recognize his Catholic Majesty the King of Spain as Emperor of the TWO AMERICAS, Whenever everything is ready for his Majesty's assuming that title, which may be either at the general peace, or at farthest within three years therefrom"

The term here used of the "Two Americas," applies to North and South America united, and the description expressly comprehends the United States. It is precisely that term which, with more aptness and precision than any other which could have been employed, embraces this whole continent

So far from furnishing any reason for supposing that a less extensive meaning was intended by the parties to be affixed to these words. the whole tenor of the treaty completely meets, and repels any attempt to contract or change their natural import,

If it is said that this expression may be construed to relate only to the dominions of Spain, which lie both in North and South America, the answer to such an interpretation is conclusive:

The term which has uniformly designated the dominions of Spain on this side the Atlantic is "The Indies." The title of his Catholic Majesty is "King of Spain and the Indies." This is the appropriate term, which long usage and common consent have appropriated to describe and designate the Spanish possessions in America. This term therefore, thus appropriated, would certainly not have been changed, for a new one which unequivocally comprises the United States, if the new term had been intended to be used in that limited sense which universal usage had prescribed for the old one. For what possible motive can be assigned for rejecting an old term which was well understood, and adopting in its stead one so comprehensive in its import, if it were not intended to explain the new term according to the plain meaning of the words?

But if this article related only to Spanish America, for what purpose should the execution of it be deferred a single instant? Why negotiate about such a trifle? If our congress were to resolve that instead of the "United States of America" we would in future style ourselves the "Republic of Fredonia," would it be necessary to