176 University of California Publications in History
 In view of previous manifestations it is not surprising to find
that the difficulty over the land grants was brought forward by the
treaty's one violent opponent in this country, Henry Clay. Accord-
ing to Adams, Clay on March 8 called on President Monroe to say
that the concessions had been made on January 23, 1818, the day
before the date stipulated in the treaty." Clay was wrong in de-
tail, but not in substance.
 The secretary of state turned to the correspondence of the de-
partment and found that letters written by Erving the previous
year had indeed warned him of the danger. It has been shown
previously that Erving's despatches gave the date of the Pufion-
rostro grant as of December 17, 1817. Adams had been thrown off
his guard, however, by Erving's statement that Pizarro had said
enough to convince him that there would be no trouble on that
score." The Vargas grant clearly was made after the date set in the
treaty, and it never seriously entered the controversy. The sub-
stantially correct assumption was that the most important grant,
that to Alag6n, had the same date as that to Pufionrostro.
 The difficulties which followed are so notorious that they need
be only summarized here." Adams, contrite because he had not
noticed the date of December, 1817, in the Pufionrostro grant, con-
sulted Hyde de Neuville at once, and then wrote Onis asking an
explanation. The Spanish minister replied with a specific declara-
tion that he understood and intended that the Alag6n, Pufion-
rostro, and Vargas grants should be void. Hyde de Neuville obliged
with a letter saying that that was also his understanding during
the negotiation." I have previously advanced the belief that Onis
did not consciously deceive Adams; that his instructions do not
appear to have given him the exact dates of the land grants; and
that, pursuant to directions to relinquish the land grants if he
could not save them without blocking the negotiation, he had meant
to give them up. Later Adams assumed the position that, inasmuch
as the grantees had not taken possession of their lands, the conces-
sions would not have been binding upon the King of Spain, and
therefore, according to the treaty wording, were void no matter
what their dates."
 None of the grantees had, indeed, occupied the extensive re-
 gions involved. But an agent of Alag6n, one Garrido, was for-
 mally put in possession by the Spanish governor at St. Augustine,