Leaving out of consideration the decision of the law, even the general opinion which was on my side and which comprehends and binds by virtue of common sense those who recognize no superior, and which all of us were and are bound to follow, pointed to the same thing, and it was proved clearly by the said treaty on which we both founded our pretensions, without any necessity arising of dragging ab extra any other right or allegation; because if he who found land, found it in the other’s demarcation, he was bound to surrender it to him, according to the terms of the said treaty, it is evident, and follows plainly, that he who found the land must first hold and possess it, because not holding it he could not surrender it to the other, who petitioned him for it, on the grounds that it had been found within his demarcation.  If any thing else should be declared, it was in violation of the terms of the said treaty, which must be understood and fulfilled effectually.

From the above it followed clearly that the finding of which the said treaty speaks, must be understood and is understood effectually.  It is expedient to know, by taking and possessing it, that which is found; and consequently the most serene King of Portugal, nor his ships, can, in no manner, be spoken of as having found Maluco at any time, since he did not take possession of it at all, nor holds it now, nor has it in his possession in order that he may surrender it according to the stipulations of the said treaty.

And by this same reasoning it appeared that Maluco was found by us and by our ships, since possession of it was taken and made in our name, holding it and possessing it, as now we hold and possess it, and having power to surrender it, if supplication is made to us.  It appearing to fall within the demarcation of the most serene King of Portugal, it follows from this, that supplication must be made to us by him, and if it is found to lie within his demarcation, he must receive it from us, and not we from him, in accordance with the said treaty, which being understood to the letter, as the ambassadors petition, thus proves and determines the question.

It was especially declared that we, in this reasoning, made no request of the King of Portugal.  And inasmuch as we were the defendant we neither wished to, nor ought we to have any desire to assume the duties of the plaintiff, because if the King wished anything from us for which he should petition us, we were quite ready to fulfil in entire good faith all the obligations of the said treaty.

Furthermore it was declared that, supposing—­which is not at all true—­that the King of Portugal had found Maluco first, and that he should claim that we should restore it to him, asserting that he had been despoiled of it by our having taken possession of it on our own authority, when we should have petitioned and received it from him; or alleging that we did not disturb or trouble him in the possession of what