We will proceed further to trace the history of this acquisition of the batture, by the plaintiff, who writes a letter of lamentations to some member of the government, on the 27th of June, 1809. That 'Congress will probably adjourn without coming to any decision on the subject of my removal by the late president of the United States from my estate at New-Orleans.' A most ungrateful complaint; for had he not been removed, he must, at the time of writing this letter, have been, as his estate was, some 10 or 12 feet under water; the river being then at its greatest height. And when was this notable discovery made, that the beach of the river was the separate and exclusive property of J. Gravier, clear of all public right to its use? Let us hear the Governor, in answer to this question. In a letter to the Secretary of State of October 13, 1807, he says, 'early after the arrival of Mr. Livingston in this territory, he became concerned in the purchase of a parcel of ground fronting the fauxbourg of this city, commonly called the batture, a property which had been occupied as a common by the city for many years previous, and the title to which, in the opinion of the inhabitants was unquestionable.' The day[82] of the arrival of Mr. Livingston in New-Orleans I do not know; but I recollect he was one of the earliest emigrants to that country, which was ceded to the United States on the 30th of October, 1803. We are told, [Rep. 11. Thierry 5.] it was proved by some oral testimony that J. Gravier began an inclosure of 500 feet square in that year, and completed it in the next. The day *of beginning |[13*]| is not stated; but we may safely presume it was not while the French Governor thought the country belonged to his master, and most probably not till after 'the early arrival of Mr. Livingston.' This enclosure was demolished by an order of the Cabildo of Feb. 22, 1804.[83] The next step was to make an ostensible deed, to an ostensible purchaser,[84] a Peter de la Bigarre, a brother emigrant of Mr. Livingston's | Bigarre.| from New York, some old acquaintance. This was dated March 27, 1804, is expressed to be in consideration of 10,000 dollars, and conveys two undivided thirds of all that part or parcel of land, situate on the bank [sur la rive] of the river Missisipi, between the public road and the current of the said river, &c. with a warranty. I call the purchases ostensible, because notwithstanding his pretended purchase, J. Gravier, on the 20th of October, 1805, [Rep. 1.] commenced a suit against the city, as proprietor of the whole, and the court adjudged him proprietor of the whole; and because the same J. Gravier, [Poydr. 3.] by a deed to the same P. de la Bigarre, in which no mention was made of the former, or reference to it, conveys to him on the 14th Dec. 1806, the batture Ste. Marie, along the whole limits of this land, between the road and river, on condition that he shall pay all expenses of the suit depending, with 50,000 dollars in addition; that the property shall remain unsold and hypothecated for the purchase money till paid, and that if the law-suit fails, the sale is void, and Bigarre to pretend to no damages for non-execution. It is observable here that neither buyer or seller risked anything. It was a mere speculation on the chance of a law-suit, in which they were to divide the spoils if successful, and to lose nothing if they failed.[85] It was by our law a criminal purchase of a pretense title, 32. H. 8. 9. and equally criminal by the law of that territory, where I presume the provision of the Roman law is in force, 'qui improbè coeunt in alienam litem, ut quidquid ex condemnatione in rem ipsius redactum fuerit, inter eos commnnicaretur, lege Juliâ, de vi privatâ, tenentur.' Dig. 47. 8. 6. 4 Blackst. 135. 'Whosoever shall take part in the suit of another, so that whatever shall be recovered by the judgment is to be divided between them, shall be subject to the Julian law, de vi privata.' By which law, ib. tit. 7. § 1. they were to lose one third of their goods, and be rendered infamous. The deed was not only criminal on its face, but was void by an express law of the territory, [14*]| because not executed before either witnesses or notaries. It was kept secret from its date, till the day before judgment was pronounced, when the parties becoming apprised of the decision which was to be given, (for this was known at least on the 20th of May,) [Governor Claiborne's letter May 20, '07,] produced it, for the first time, to the Notary to be recorded. And the day after its publication, the court, by the opinion of two members | Decision of Court.
Alarm occasioned.| against one, [Examen 3.] adjudged the property wholly to the very man, who, if he had ever had any right, had conveyed away two thirds of it, before he brought his action, and the whole while it was pending. The alarm which this adjudication produced was immediate and great. The fact was notorious that, from the earliest to the latest extension of the beach, the public had had a free use of it, as their Quai in low water, and in high water their port; and never before had their right been doubted by themselves, or questioned by their riparian possessors. If any fact was ever proved by human testimony, this is. Turn to the Pieces Probantes, and out of 29 affidavits of the oldest and most respectable persons in the territory, men who had, most of them, borne offices under their former government, 21 of them uniformly declare that the public had ever been considered as having a right to the beach, as their port and Quai, that, as such, the Governors and Cabildo had the constant care and control of it, had demolished buildings and enclosures erected on it, had, by public Ban, prohibited all erections or obstructions to its use, had themselves erected a rampart, to inclose within it a chamber accessible for earth at high water for rebuilding the city after the fire, and exercised uninterruptedly every other act of authority derived from the public rights; and 11 of them prove, as far as a negative can be proved, that the Graviers, till the change of government, and new views by Edward Livingston, had never pretended to more than the right of Common in it, and never had questioned that of the public, or the authority of the Governor and Cabildo over it. While they held the adjacent plantation indeed, they maintained the road and bank, as all rural proprietors are obliged by[86] law to do: for here it is proper to observe, that pursuing the spirit of the Roman law, which prescribed that every one should | Servitude of road.| maintain the public road along his own dwelling, 'construat vias publicas unusquisque secundum propriam domum.' Dig 43. 10. 3. The lands in Louisiana were granted generally on a condition, (called in those days *servitude,) of furnishing |[15*]| ground for a public road, and of opening and maintaining that road. From which condition, however, they were released as to any portion of the ground which should afterwards become a town; the expense of roads or streets of that portion devolving then on the town itself. Accordingly B. Gravier, after establishing the front of his plantation into a suburb, and thus cutting off the residue from the road and river, being[87] called on to repair the road by an order from Governor Carondelet, who seems at the moment not to have adverted to the change, Bertrand Gravier answered, that having sold the lots faisant face au fleuve, fronting the river, he had abandoned the batture to the town, and that the road and levee could not be at his expense, the Governor correcting himself at once, says, 'Gravier is right, all this is true,' and immediately, and ever after had the repairs made by the public. And the Graviers from that time stood discharged from these burthens on the same principle which had freed the original owners of the site of the city from maintaining the banks of the city. This is declared by an host of witnesses in the Pieces Probantes, and probably could have been declared by every ancient inhabitant of the place. We are told indeed by Laroche and Segur, in their affidavit, [Livingston 66.] of Carondelet, and some other Governor asking leave of Gravier in 1795 and 1798, to deposit masts on the beach. If this be true, which Mr. Thierry, [p. 42.] who knew the witnesses, treats as ridiculous and absurd, it shows that they were forgetful, or inconsistent, or over complaisant; but not that Gravier required, or expected to be asked; and much less could it divest a public right, acknowledged from the earliest times, and essential to the commerce and existence of the city. An accurate discrimination indeed between the measure of right in the riparian proprietor while he held the adjacent farm, in the individuals of the nation as usufructuaries, and in the sovereign as their representative and trustee, as respectively apportioned to them by the law, seems not to have been attended to either by the citizens at large, or the adjacent proprietors. The riparian possessor appears to have been sensible he had some rights, without distinctly understanding what they were: but, whatever they were, he knew he had parted with them by the deeds establishing his fauxbourg. The citizens, in the daily habit of using without control the port and Quai, imagined themselves exclusive proprietors of its soil, and came forward in that capacity, claiming, sometimes under some vague title which they did not define, and sometimes under the abandonment of right by Bertrand |[16*]
U. States no party.| Gravier; *the Sovereign, formerly their kings, but now the United States the legal holder of the public rights in the beds, beaches and banks of all navigable waters, seems not to have been thought of at all in the contest. The United States were no party to the suit; nor could they be, having made themselves amenable to no tribunal. Their property can never be questioned in any court, but in special cases in which, by some particular law, they delegate a special power, as to the boards of Commissioners, and in some small fiscal cases. But a general jurisdiction over the national demenses, being more than half the territory of the United States, has never been by them, and never ought to be, subjected to any tribunal. Not adverting to this circumstance, however, the consternation in New-Orleans, on this decision, was like that of Boston, on the occlusion of their port by the Boston port bill. If we have not forgotten that feeling, we may judge what the citizens of New-Orleans felt on this decree of the court.
The governor instantly writes, [letter of May 20, '07.] 'I understand that this morning an important cause has been determined, in which Edward Livingston was the real plaintiff, and the city defendant, as to the right of property to some lands in front of the fauxbourg, made by the river, and over which the city has heretofore exercised a right of ownership. My impression is that the United States are the legal claimants to it.' On the 21st of August, 1807, Mr. Derbigny's opinion was published, [Thierry 5.] and first brought into view the right of the United States, and that the sentence of the court must of course, as to them, be a mere nullity, 'res inter alios acta, quæque aliis non potest præjudicium facere.' A thing passing between others, and which to no others can do prejudice. Codex. 7. 60. And coming, with respect to the United States, under the provisions of the same code.
| Tit. 56. 'Si neque mandasti fratri tuo defensionem rei tuæ, neque quod gestum est ratum habuisti, præscriptio rei judicatæ tibi non oberit: et ideò non prohiberis causam tuam agere, sine præjudicio rerum judicatarum.' | 'If you have not committed to your brother the defence of your right, nor sanctioned what has been done, the plea rei judicata shall not bar you: and therefore you shall not be precluded from conducting your own cause, without exception from a former decision.' |
Certainly the city council did not appear, or pretend to appear, under authorization from the government of the United States, nor as the advocates of their rights. They were called there as defendants of their own claim. The court did not undertake to decide on the right of the United States, which |[17*]| was *neither before them, nor within their competence; and the injunction they issued could only be addressed to the parties between whom they had adjudged, and not to suspend the rights of others whom they had never heard, much less of the United States, who could not be heard before them. Sec 2 Dallas 408. 3 Dallas 412. 414. 415.
| Livingston's Intrusion.| Presuming, however, that the coast was now clear, and the question finally settled, the ostensible actors withdrew, and their principal comes forward, is put into possession by the Sheriff, and begins his works. The Governor, in his letter of Sept. 3, 1807, says, 'a few days since, [Aug. 24.] Mr. Livingston employed a number of negroes to commence digging a canal which he projected to take in a part of the land called the batture. But the citizens assembled in considerable force and drove them off. On the day following he went in person, but was again opposed by the citizens. The minds of the people were much agitated. The opposition is so general that I must resort to measures the most conciliatory, as the only means of avoiding still greater tumult, and perhaps much bloodshed. I have not issued a proclamation because it might make an impression in the United States that the people are disposed for insurrection, which is not true. My opinion is that the title is in the United States. If the batture be reclaimed, it is feared the current of the Missisipi will in some measure change its course, which will not only prove injurious to the navigation, but may occasion degradation in the levees of the city, or those in its vicinity.' To abridge our narration by giving the substance of the communications. The people assembled the next day about the same hour, and for several days successively, by beat of drum. [Livingston's letter of Sept. 15. '07.] On Monday the 31st of August, Mr. Livingston recommenced his work, after having given notice that he should do so. He began about 10 o'clock, A. M. and about 4 or 5 o'clock in the afternoon the people assembled again and drove off his labourers. On the 14th of September he again attempted to work, getting two constables to attend his labourers. The people drove them off, and the constables having noted on a list some of those present, they seized them, took the list and tore it to pieces. [Sheriff's letter.] On the next day he writes to the Governor that he shall set his labourers to work again that day at 12 o'clock, and 'he shall not be surprised to see the people change the insolence of riot into the crime of murder.' At noon he accordingly placed 10 or 12 white labourers there. In the afternoon the people re-assembled to the number of several hundreds. The governor repaired there and spoke to them. He was heard with respectful attention:*and |[18*]| one of them, speaking for the whole, expressed the serious uneasiness which the decision of the court had excited, the long and undisturbed possession of the batture by the city, as well under the French as the Spanish government, and the great injury which would result to the inhabitants if the land should be built upon and improved. And another declaring that they wished the decision of Congress, and in the mean time, no work to be done on the batture, there was a general exclamation from the crowd, 'that is the general wish,' followed by a request that they might nominate an agent to bear to the President of the United States, a statement of their grievances, and that the Governor would recommend | Appeal to government of the United States.| the agent to the government. He said he would do so, and they nominated Col. Macarty, by general and repeated acclamations. They then withdrew in peace to their respective homes, and on the 16th the Governor expresses the hope that this unpleasant affair is at an end, that everything is then quiet, and the public mind much composed: that some of his hot-headed countrymen censured the mild course which was pursued, and would have been better pleased if the military had been called upon to disperse the assemblage. But I feel, says he, that the policy adopted was wise and humane, and that a contrary conduct would have increased the discontents, and occasioned the effusion of much innocent blood. The Louisianians, he adds, are an amiable, virtuous people, but sensibly feel any wrongs which may be offered them. Mr. Livingston is alike feared and hated by most of the ancient inhabitants. They dread his talents as a lawyer, and hate his views of speculation, which in the case of the batture was esteemed very generally by the Louisianians no less iniquitous, than ruinous to the welfare of the city.' The governor says in another letter of October 5, to the Secretary of state, that in a progress he made a few days afterwards through several parishes of the territory, he perceived but one sentiment with respect to the decision of the court. The long and uninterrupted use of the batture by the city, the sanction given by the Spanish authorities to the public claim, and the heavy public expenditures in maintaining the levee which fronts it, seem to have given rise to a very general opinion that the court has been in error in deciding the batture to be private property. On the 13th of November he again writes, 'I should be wanting in duty did I not earnestly recommend the subject of the batture to the attention of the government. There is no doubt but the agents of Spain considered it as a public property, and did appropriate the same to the use of the city, as a common. I should presume that, under the treaty, the United States may justly claim the batture, |[19*]| and if any *means can be devised to arrest the judgment of the territorial court, or to carry this case before another tribunal, the earlier they are resorted to, the better; for Mr. Edward Livingston is now in possession of the property, and making improvements thereon.' And the | Livingston's works.| next day, Nov. 14, a grand jury of the most respectable characters of the place gave in a presentment to the court in which they say, 'We present as a subject of the most serious complaint the present operations on the batture by Edward Livingston and others connected with him: that this is from 4 to 6 months of every year a part of the bed of the river, and an important part of the port of New-Orleans: that these operations of Edward Livingston are calculated to obstruct the free navigation of the river, to change the course of its waters, to deprive our western brethren, whose only market for the produce of their extensive territory, is to be found in this city, of the deposit which has hitherto remained free to them, and not only of incalculable importance, but of absolute necessity. Whether it be private or public property, is immaterial, so long as the laws do not permit such use of it as to injure and obstruct the navigation: and we present it as our opinion that all such measures should be taken as are consistent with law to arrest these operations which are injurious for the present, and, in changing the course of the river, are hazardous in the extreme.' We find Mr. Livingston then, instead of awaiting the decision of Congress, the only constitutional tribunal, resuming his works boldly, and the people, whom he represented as like 'to change the insolence of riot into the crime of murder,' appealing peaceably, by presentment, to the laws of their territory until the National government should decide. In the latter end of the same year, [Surveyor's Rep. to Mayor, Dec. 28, '08.] he opens a canal from the bank directly through the beach into the river [88]276 feet long, 64 feet wide, and 4 feet 2 inches deep at low water, and with the earth excavated he forms a bank or quai, on each side, 19 feet 6 inches wide, from 4 to 6 feet high above the level of the batture, and faced with palisades. Within one year after this, what had been anticipated by the Governor, the grand jury and others, had already manifested itself. In Dec. of the ensuing year, 1808, [See Surveyor's rep. Dec. 28, '08.] a bar had already formed across the mouth of the canal, which was dry at low water, the course of the waters had been changed during the intervening flood, and the places where dry ground first showed itself, on the decrease of the river, were such as had, the year before, been navigable |[20*]| at low water. [Mayor's *answer to Governor, Nov. 18, '08.] The port in front of the town had been impaired by a new batture begun to be formed opposite the Custom house, which could not fail to increase by the change of the current. The beach or batture of St. Mary had, in that single tide extended from 75 to 80 feet further into the river, and risen from 2 to 5 feet 10 inches generally, and more in places, as a saw scaffold which, at the preceding low tide, was 7 feet high, was now buried to its top; and Tanesse, the Surveyor, [See his affidavit, MS.] in his affidavit says he does not doubt that these works have produced the last year's augmentation of the batture, at the expense of the bed of the river, have occasioned the carrying away a great part of the platin or batture of the lower suburbs, and breaking the levee of M. Blanque next below, and that the main port of the city being a cove, immediately below Livingston's works, would, if they were continued, be filled up in time; and it is the opinion of Piedesclaux also, [See his 3d affidavit, MS.] that they would produce changes in the banks of the river, on both sides, prejudicial to the city, and riparian proprietors, by directing the efforts of the river against parts not heretofore exposed to it. And Mr. Poydras tells us, [p. 20 of one of his speeches,] that when the river is at its height, the boats which drift down it can only land in the eddies below the points, as they would be dashed to pieces in attempting to land in the strong current. That, at the town, they cannot land for want of room, there being always there two or three tier of vessels in close contact; nor at the lower suburbs of Marigny, which being at the lower part of the cove, are too much exposed both to winds and current. Indeed no evidence is necessary to prove that in a river of only 1200 yards wide, having an annual tide of 12 to 14 feet rise, which brings the water generally to within 8 or 10 inches, and sometimes 2 or 3 inches, of the top of the levee, insomuch that it splashes over with the wind, [See Peltier's, and Tanesse's affidavits, MS. and also the maps,] were the channel narrowed 250 yards, as Mr. Livingston intends, that is to say, a fourth or fifth of its whole breadth, the waters must rise higher in nearly the same proportion, that is to say, 3 feet at least, and would sweep away the whole levee, the city it now protects, and inundate all the lower country.
Thus urged by the continued calls of the Governor, who declared he could not be responsible for the peace or preservation of the place, by the tumult and confusion in which the city was held by the bold aggressions of the intruders on the public rights, by the daily progress of works which were to interrupt the commerce of the whole western country, threatened to sweep |[21*]
Cabinet deliberation.| away a *great city and its inhabitants, and lay the adjacent country under water, I listened to the calls of duty, imperious calls, which had I shrunk from, I should have been justly responsible for the calamities which would have followed. On the 28th of October, '07, the Attorney General had given his opinion, and on the 27th of November, I asked the attendance of the heads of the departments, to whom the papers received had been previously communicated for their consideration. We had the benefit of the presence of the Attorney General, and of the lights which it was his office to throw on the subject. We took of the whole case such views as the state of our information at that time presented. I shall now develope them in all the fulness of the facts then known, and of those which have since corroborated them.
| What law?| The first question occurring was, what system of law was to be applied to them? On this there could be but one opinion. The laws which had governed Louisiana from its first colonization, that is to say, the laws of France with some local modifications, were still in force when this question was generated by the sale of the Jesuits' property to B. Gravier and others. France had indeed, about the end of the preceding year 1762, by a secret convention, ceded Louisiana to Spain, to be delivered whenever Spain should be in readiness to receive it. But this was not announced to the inhabitants till the 21st of April, 1764, nor did Spain receive possession till the 17th of August, 1769. [9 Raynal, 222. 235.] In the mean time the French government and laws continued, the Jesuits' property was sold, and purchased under the faith of the existing laws; and according to these laws must the rights acquired by the purchaser, or left in the crown, be decided. Indeed in no case are the laws of a nation changed, of natural right, by their passage from one to another denomination. The soil, the inhabitants, their property, and the laws by which they are protected go together. Their laws are subject to be changed only in the case, and extent which their new legislature shall will. The changes introduced by Spain, after 1769, were chiefly in the organization of their government, and but little in the principles of their jurisprudence. The instrument which some have understood as suppressing the French and introducing the Spanish | Proclamation of O'Reilly.| code, is the proclamation of O'Reilly of November 25, 1769, two months after the actual delivery of the colony. [See appendix to documents communicated to Congress by the President, with his message of October 17, 1803.] The transfer of the country, however, had been announced to the people five years before. Now surely, during these five years | French code.
[22*]| the *French laws must have continued entire, and of course after them, so far as not altered. And that this proclamation made specific only, and not general alterations, a brief examination of its tenor will evince. It begins by charging the late council with a participation in the insurrection which had taken place, and by declaring it indispensable to abolish that, and to establish the form of politic government and administration of justice prescribed by the wise laws of Spain. But a form of government may surely be changed, and the mass of the laws remain the same, as took place in our revolution. He proceeds then to establish that form of government, dependence and subordination, which should accord with the good of the service, and happiness of the colony. For this purpose he substitutes a Cabildo, in place of the ancient council, and instead of former analogous officers, he says there shall be Alferes, Alcades, Alguazils, Depositors, Regidors, a Scrivener, Procurator, Mayordomo, &c.; adopting thus the Spanish instead of the French organization of officers, for the administration of the laws. He changes the manner of proceedings in judicial trials, and of pronouncing judgments, according to a digest made by Unestia and Rey, by his order, until a general knowledge of the Spanish language and more extensive information on the statutes themselves might be acquired; prescribes rules for instituting actions by parties, of different denominations, the names and substance of the pleadings, rules for appearances, answers, replications, rejoinders, depositions, witnesses, exceptions, trials, judgments, appeals, executions, testaments, probates, advancements, and distributions: not changing the great outlines of the law, or the ratio decidendi generally; but merely the organization of officers, and forms of their proceeding. He states also the criminal law, what it is in sundry cases of irreligion, treason, murder, theft, rape, adultery, and trespass, proclaiming mostly what was already law; lastly, he establishes the fees of officers, and with that closes the proclamation, without a word said about abolishing the French, and substituting the Spanish code of laws generally. As far then as this instrument makes any special changes, its authority is acknowledged. But the very act of making special changes is a manifestation that a general one was not then intended. He did not mean by this instrument to change 'all and some.' One may indeed conjecture, from loose expressions in the instruments, that a more extensive change was in contemplation for some future time, when the inhabitants, as it says, should have acquired a general knowledge of the Spanish language. But until then expressly, and in the interim, the innovations it specifies are the only ones introduced. The great system of law which |[23*]| *regulates property, which prescribes the rights of persons and things, and sanctions to every one the enjoyment of those rights, is left untouched, in full force and authority. If such a radical change were really meditated, it was never carried into execution; nor seems at any after time to have occupied seriously the attention of government. In the following year 1770, O'Reilly issued an additional ordinance respecting grants of lands; and Carondelet, in 1795, (26 years after the possession of the colony, and a year only before its transfer to us,) passed an ordinance of police, concerning bridges, roads, levees, slaves, coasters, travellers, arms, estrays, fishing and hunting; and these three acts seem to constitute the whole of the changes made in the established system of laws during the Spanish occupation of the country. Probably the Spanish authorities found, in the progress of their administration, that the difference between the French and Spanish codes, taken both from the same Roman original, would not justify disturbing the public mind, by a formal suppression of the one, and substitution of the other. Probably the officers themselves, not adepts in either, and partly French, and partly Spanish individuals, confounded them in practice as they found convenient; and hence the ill-defined ideas of what their laws were. But certainly when we appeal, as in the present case, to exact right, the French code is the only one sanctioned by regular authority; and the special changes before mentioned, of organization and police, having no relation to the beds and increments of rivers, that code is to give us the law of the present case. That code, like all those of middle and southern Europe, was originally feudal, [Encyclop. Method. Jurisprudence. Coutume. 400.] with some variations in the different provinces, formerly independent, of which the kingdom of France had been made up. But as circumstances changed, and civilization and commerce advanced, abundance of new cases and questions | Roman.| arose, for which the simple and unwritten laws of feudalism had made no provision. At the same time, they had at hand the legal system of a nation highly civilized, a system carried to a degree of conformity with natural reason attained by no other. The study of this system too was become the favorite of the age, and, offering ready and reasonable solutions of all the new cases presenting themselves, was recurred to by a common consent and practice; not indeed as laws, formally established by the legislator of the country, but as a RATIO SCRIPTA, the dictate, in all cases, of that sound reason which should constitute the law of every country.[89] Over |[24*]| both of these systems, however, the occasional* edicts of the monarch are paramount, and amend and control their provisions whenever he deems amendment necessary; on the general principle that 'leges posteriores priores abrogant.'[90] Subsequent laws abrogate those which were prior. This composition of the French code is affirmed by all their authorities. One only of them shall be particularly cited, to wit, Ferriere Dict. de droit. Ordonnance.
| 'Les Ordonnances sont les vraies lois du royaume. Elles font la partie la plus générale et la plus certaine de notre droit Français, attendu qu'elles sont soutenues de l'autorité aussi bien que de la raison; au lieu que les loix Romaines ne subsistent que par leur équité, elles n'ont par elles-mêmes aucune autorité, qu'autant qu'elles sont considérées comme une raison écrite, du moins en pays coutumier; et à l'égard du pays de droit écrit, les loix Romaines n'y ont force de loi, que parceque nos rois ont bien voulu y consentir.' | The Ordinances are the true laws of the kingdom. They constitute the most general and certain part of our French law, inasmuch as they are supported by authority as well as reason; whereas the Roman laws stand on their equity alone, having of themselves no authority, but as they are considered as written reason, at least in the provinces of Customary law. And as to those of written law, the Roman laws are in force only because our kings have thought proper to consent to it. |
This system of law was transferred to Louisiana, as is evinced by the [91]charter of Louis XIV. to Crozat, bearing date |[25*]| the *14th of Sept. 1712. The VIIth article of that is in these words. 'Our edicts, ordinances and customs, and the usages of the Mayorality and Shreevalty of Paris, shall be observed for laws and customs in the said country of Louisiana.' The customary law of Paris seems to have been selected, because considered as the best digest, and that to which it was proposed to reduce the customary law of all the provinces. Enc. Meth. Jurispr. Coutume. 405. This is the first charter we know of which established the boundaries and laws of Louisiana. It says nothing of the Roman law; but that, having become incorporated, by usage, with the customs of Paris, and constituting, as a supplement, one system with them, seems to have been considered as of their body, and transferred with them to Louisiana.[92] In 1717, Crozat transferred his rights to the Compagnie d'Occident, at the head of which was the famous Law, 8. Raynal. 166. [edit. 1780.] which again in 1720, by union with others, became the Compagnie des Indes, who in 1731, surrendered the colony back to the king. 1. Valin, 20. But these various transfers from company to company, of the monopoly of their commerce, for that was the sum of what was granted them, and their final surrender to the king, could not affect the rights of the people, nor change the laws by which they were governed. When they returned to the immediate government of the king, their laws passed with them, and remained in full force until, and so far only as, subsequently altered by their legislator. That |[26*]| this was the sense of their *government may be inferred from a clause in the edict creating the Compagnie des Indes Occidentales, art. 34.