THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES IN MAINTAINING THE PUBLIC RIGHT TO THE BEACH OF THE PREPARED FOR THE USE OF COUNSEL, BY THOMAS JEFFERSON. The figures in this table refer to the pages of the original edition of Mr. Jefferson's pamphlet, which in this edition are marked with an asterisk, and placed in the margin. Responsibility of a public function ary, 54 58 61 62 63 64 68 PREFACE. EDWARD LIVINGSTON, of the territory of Orleans, having taken possession of the beach of the river Missisipi adjacent to the city of NewOrleans, in defiance of the general right of the nation to the property and use of the beaches and beds of their rivers, it became my duty, as charged with the preservation of the public property, to remove the intrusion, and to maintain the citizens of the United States in their right to a common use of that beach. Instead of viewing this as a public act, and having recourse to those proceedings which are regularly provided for conflicting claims between the public and an individual, he chose to consider it as a private trespass committed on his freehold, by myself personally, and instituted against me, after my retirement from office, an action of trespass, in the circuit court of the United States for the district of Virginia. Being requested by my Counsel to furnish them with a statement of the facts of the case, as well as of my own ideas of the questions of right, I proceeded to make such a statement, fully as to facts, but briefly and generally as to the questions of right. In the progress of the work, however, I found myself drawn insensibly into details, and finally concluded to meet the questions generally which the case would present, and to expose the weakness of the plaintiff's pretensions, in addition to the strength of the public right. These questions were of course to arise under the laws of the territory of Orleans, composed of the Roman, the French, and Spanish codes, and written in those languages. The books containing them are so rare in this country as scarcely to be found in the best-furnished libraries. Having more time than my Counsel, consistently with their duties to others, could bestow on researches so much out of the ordinary line, I thought myself bound to facilitate their labors, and furnish them with such materials as I could collect. I did it by full extracts from the several authorities, and in the languages in which they were originally written, that they might judge for themselves whether I misinterpreted them. These materials and topics, expressed in the technical style of the law, familiar to them, they were of course to use or not to use, according to the dictates of their better judgment. If used, it would be with the benefit of being delivered in a form better suited to the public ear. I passed over the question of jurisdiction, because that was one of ordinary occurrence, and its limitations well ascertained. On this, in event, the case was dismissed; the court being of opinion they could not decide a question of title to lands not within their district. My wish had rather been for a full investigation of the merits at the bar, that the public might learn, in that way, that their servants had done nothing but what the laws had authorised and required them to do. Precluded now from this mode of justification, I adopt that of publishing what was meant originally for the private eye of counsel. The apology for its general complexion, more formal than popular, must be found as well in the character of the question, as in the views with which its discussion had been prepared. The necessity, indeed, of continuing the elaborate quotations, is strengthened in the case of ordinary readers, who are supposed to have still less opportunity of turning to the authorities from which these are taken. The questions arising, being many and independent of each other, admitted not a methodical and luminous arrangement. Proceeding, therefore, in a course of narrative, I have met and discussed the points of law in the order in which events presented them; thus securing, as we go along, the ground we pass over, and leaving nothing adversary or doubtful behind. Hence the mixture of fact and law which will be observed through the whole. Vouchers for the facts are regularly referred to. These are principally, 1. Affidavits taken and published on the part of the plaintiff, and of the city of New-Orleans, very deeply interested in this question. 2. Printed statements, by the counsel on each side, uncontradicted by the other, of facts under their joint observation and knowledge. 3. Records. 4. Notarial acts, and 5. Letters and reports of public functionaries filed in the office of the department of state. Feb. 25, 1812. PART II. THE BATTURE AT NEW ORLEANS. Title of the Fronting riv er. Not long after the establishment of the city of New-Orleans, and while the religious society of Jesuits retained their standing in France, they obtained from Louis XIV. a grant of lands adjacent to the city, bearing date the 11th of April, 1726. The original of this grant having been destroyed in the fire which consumed a great part of the city in 1794, and no copy of it as yet produced, the extent and character of the grant is known from no authentic document. Its other limits are unimportant, but that next the river and above the city is understood to have been of 20 arpents, or acres, [of 180 French feet, or 64 yards of our measure each,] 'face au fleuve,' the ambiguity of which expression is preserved by translating it, 'fronting the river.' Whether this authorized them to go to the water line of the river, or only to the road and levee, is a question of some difficulty, and not of importance enough to arrest our present attention. To these they had added 12 arpents more by purchase from individuals. In 1763 the order of Jesuits was suppressed in France, and their property confiscated. The 32 arpents, before mentioned, were divided into 6 parcels, described each as 'faisant face au fleuve,' and the one next to the city of 7 arpents in breadth, and 50 in depth, was sold to Pradel; but how these 7 arpents, like Falstaff's men in buckram, became 12 in the sale of the widow Pradel to Renard, [Report 7.] 13 in Gravier's inventory, and nearly 17, as is said Derb. viii. ix. in the Confiscation. Gravier's title. |