| Recapitulation.| Taking now a brief review of the whole ground we have gone over, we may judge of the correctness of the decision of the Cabinet, as to their duty in this case. I trust it will appear to every candid and unbiassed mind, that they were not mistaken in believing
That the Customs of Paris, the Ordinances of the French government, the Roman law as a supplement to both, with the special acts of the Spanish and American legislatures, composed that system of law which was to govern their proceedings.
That, were this a case of Alluvion, the French law gives it to the Sovereign in all cases; and the Roman law to the private holder of rural possessions only.
That Bertrand Gravier had converted his plantations into a fauxbourg, and appendage of the city of New-Orleans; with the previous sanction of the Spanish government, according to his own declarations, by which those claiming under him are as much bound, as if made by themselves; and certainly by its subsequent formal recognitions, and confirmations, which acted retrospectively; and the character of the ground being thus changed from a Rural to an Urban possession, the Roman law of Alluvion does not act on it. Recapitulation.
|[71*]| That even had his ground retained its rural character, and admitting that the grant to him 'face au fleuve' conveyed the lands to the water's edge, his sales, 'face au fleuve' conveyed to his* purchasers the same right which the same terms had brought to him, and they, and not the plaintiff, now hold the rights of B. Gravier, whatever they were.
That John Gravier having elected to take the estate as a purchaser by inventory and appraisement, the Batture, if Bertrand's, was not in that inventory, nor consequently purchased by John Gravier.
That the deed from him to De la Bigarre was fraudulent and void, as well by the lex loci, as on the face of the transaction.
That the decision of the court in his favor could in no wise concern the United States, who were neither parties to the suit, nor amenable to the jurisdiction.
And, consequently, that under all these views of the French law: the Roman law, the conveyances 'face au fleuve,' the purchase by inventory, and the fraudulency of the deed to Bigarre, the plaintiff's claim is totally unfounded. And, if void by any one of them, it is as good as if void by every one.
But it has appeared further that the batture had not a single characteristic of alluvion: