168 University of Calfonia Pubaication in History

 u Adams, Memoirs, IV:4. Information on the relations between Astor and
Adams is only one of many valuable finds which would be revealed to the his-
torian if the Adams family papers were open.
 SMemorandum of Biehard Bush, September 25, 1817, in D.S., Special
Agents, VL
 Miller, Treates, 11:658-662.
 Oni to Piarro, October 81, 1818, in A.H.N., Est., 5648.
 SOnis to Pisarro, February 16, 1819, id., 5661.
 Onis to Piarro, March 8, 1818, bd., 5562, Expediente 11.
 SQuoted in Franueso Egula (minister of war) to Piarro, July 6, 1818,
ibid.
 SViceroy Con de e Venadito to msiistro de guerra, December 81, 1818, ibid.
 Erving to Adams, September 20, 1818, in D.S., Despatches, Spain, XVI.
 Irujo to Onu, October 10, 1818, in A.E.N., Et., 5668.
 u Joe6 Garea de LeoI y Piarro, Memorie (Madrid, 1894-1897), 11:85.
 SOnis to Irujo, January 4, 1819, in A..N, Est., 5645.
 That Adams yielded Texas knowing that Oni instructions authorized the
latter to give it up is an unreasonable supposition. Yet it was suggested in
debates at the time, in 1844, and recently in Biehard Stenberg, "The Bound-
aries of the Louisiana Purchase," Hiaspian Ameria Historis Review, XIV
(1984):54. Authorities cited by 8tenberg include Adams' instruction to For-
syth of August 18, 1819, in AJ.P., F., IV:246-250 [error for 658], and
Adams' speech to the Young Men's Whig Club of Boston on Oetober 7, 1844.
To Forsyth, Adam said he knew that "both in relation to the grants of land
in Florida, and to the western boundary, the terms whieh he [Ous] obtained
were far within the limits of his instructions." He did not apply that sped-
fcally to the TeaQ question, however. In a prt (not quoted by Steberg) of
the Boston speech, which was given when Texa was definitely the fous of
attention, Adams id the letter to Forsyth did not refer to the western bound-
ary. This conflict with the wording of the letter if one take it to mean the
western boundary in general. An analysis of all Adam' statements on the
matter, however, indicates that, although he knew that Oans could have ac-
cepted a different arrangement on the line north of the Bed River, he did not
know that the Spaniard was authorized to take any limit west of the Sabine,
which appeared to have been definitely settled late in 1818.
 Oni to Irujo, January 11, 1819, in A.H.N, Est., 564; Ona to Adams,
January 1, 1819, in AJ..P, ., IV:615.
 SOnis to Irujo, January 12, 1819, in A.H.N, Et., 5646.
 Ouf to Adams, January 16,1819, in AJ.P. F.S., IV:615-616.
 Adams, Memoirs, IV:219. In his dspateh to Irujo of January 16, 1819,
Onis explain his determination to proceed on his own initiative; ee A.H.N.,
Et., 5661.
 SAdams, Memoirs, IV:23.
 Irujo to Ons, October 2, 1818, in A.H.N., 56648.
 SOnla to Adams, February 1, 1819, in AJ.P., F., IV:616-617.
 n Adams, Memoirs, IV:238-289.
 Ibid., p. 244. A map illustrating the various boundary proposals appears
in Thoma M. Marshall, History of the Western Boundary of the Louislana
Purchase (Berkeley, 1914), facing p. 66. See also Charle O. Paullin, Atls of
the Historial Geography of the United States (Washington and New York,
1932), pp. 66-8 and plate 95A.