The Act of Congress of May 26, 1824, 4 Stat. 52, for enabling
claimants to lands within the limits of the State of Missouri and
Territory of Arkansas to institute proceedings to try the validity
of their titles, and which was revived by the Act of Jane 17, 1844,
5 Stat. 676, did not embrace within its operation complete or
perfect titles to land.
It applied to incomplete titles only, derived either from
Spanish, French, or British grants, and of these provided for such
only as had been legally issued by a competent authority, and were
protected by treaty.
The act, as revived and reenacted as aforesaid, was not designed
to invest the holders of imperfect titles with new or additional
rights, but merely to provide a remedy by which legal, just, and
bona fide claims might be established.
The Treaty of St. Ildefonso, between Spain and the French
Republic, and that of Paris, between France and the United States,
should be construed as binding on the parties thereto, from the
respective dates of those treaties.
Upon no plausible pretext could it be denied that the Treaty of
St. Ildefonso was obligatory upon Spain from the period of her
acceptance of the provision made for the Duke of Parma, in
pursuance of that treaty,
viz., on 21 March, 1801, or from
the date at which she ordered the surrender of the Province of
Louisiana to France,
viz., on 15 October, 1802.
A grant by Morales, the Spanish governor, issued on 2 January,
1804, for lands included within the limits of Louisiana, was void;
Spain having parted with her title to that Province to France, by
the Treaty of St. Ildefonso on 1 October, 1800; and France having
ceded the same Province to the United States by the Treaty of Paris
of 30 September, 1803.
Such a grant could not be protected by that article of the
Treaty of Paris which stipulated for the protection of the people
of Louisiana in the free enjoyment
of their liberty and
property; the term "property," in any correct acceptation,
being applicable only to possessions or rights founded in justice
and good faith, and based upon authority competent to their
creation.
The circumstance that the Spanish authorities retained
possession of portions of Louisiana till the year 1810 did not
authorize the issuing of grants for land by those authorities, upon
the ground that they constituted a government
de facto,
Spain having long previously ceded away her right of sovereignty,
and her possession subsequently thereto having been ever treated by
the United States as "wrongful,"
viz., after October,
1800.
The decisions of this Court in the cases of Foster and Neilson,
and Garcia and Lee, sustaining the construction of the political
department of the government upon the question of the limits of
Louisiana, reviewed and confirmed.
On 10 December, 1803, the following certificate of survey was
issued:
"I, Don Vincente Sebastian Pintado, captain of militia cavalry
and deputy surveyor of this Province, do hereby certify that there
has been measured and the boundaries marked of a tract of land for
Don Jose Reynes, containing 40,000 superficial arpents, measured by
the perch of the City of Paris, of 18 feet of said city,
calculating 100 superficial perches to the arpent, according to the
agrarian custom of this Province, which tract is situated 4 1/3
miles to the south of the boundary line between the domains of his
Majesty and the United States of America,
Page 50 U. S. 128
bounded on the north by lands belonging to Don Jayme Jorda, Don
Manuel de Sanzos, and on all the other sides by vacant lands, the
River Comite, and a branch of said river, commonly called Canaveral
Creek, passing in the center of said tract, all of which are
clearly described in the preceding plan signed by me, in which plan
said tract is represented with the dimensions of its boundaries in
lineal perches of Paris, the directions of the boundaries by the
compass, the declination or variation of which is in the direction
northeast, the trees and mounds intended as landmarks, and all
other natural and artificial limits. The said 40,000 arpents were
bought by the interested party from the royal treasury, and were
ordered to be measured and appraised by a decree of the General
Intendancy of this Province, under date of 1 September last, sent
to Carlos de Grandpre, colonel of the royal armies, civil and
military governor of the post of Baton Rouge and of its
dependencies, and sub-delegate of the General Intendancy, who
notified me of said decree, and of its contents."
"And said Excellency, the governor and sub-delegate, having
appointed Don Pedro Allen and Don Felix Bernardo Dumontier
appraisers on behalf of the government, and the agent of the party,
Don Antonio Gras, having named Don Philipe Hickey and Don Bernardo
Dubrocar, said gentlemen being assisted by two witnesses, to-wit,
Don Thomas Valentin Dalton and Juan Poret, appraised the aforesaid
tract at the price and sum of six thousand dollars, or at the rate
of fifteen cents per superficial arpent, the agent of the party,
being informed of said appraisement, consented and approved it,
receiving said tract as purchased, acknowledging the delivery
thereof, and with the appraisers and witnesses, signed these
presents in Baton Rouge, on 19 day of the month of November of the
year 1803."
Signed,
"ANTONIO GRASS,"
"VINCENTE SEBASTIAN PINTADO"
"PEDRO, ALLEN"
"FELIX BERNARDO DUMONTIER"
"PHILIP HICKEY"
"BERNARDO DUBROCAR"
"VN. DALTON"
"JUAN PORET"
"The foregoing plan and explanations, or description, have been
registered, in the office of general measuration, in book D, No. 4,
folio 84, and the plan numbering 1672."
"10 December, 1803. Signed by me as Surveyor General. "
Page 50 U. S. 129
"I certify that the foregoing is a correct copy of the original
filed with the documents of the case, and I give the present in
virtue of a decree from the Intendant General, dated 6th of the
present month of December, dated as above."
"[Signed] CARLOS TRUDEAU,
Surveyor General"
On 2 January, 1804, the following grant was made:
"Don Juan Ventura Morales
(contador de exercito),
comptroller for the army, intendant and superintendent
pro
tempore of the Province of West Florida, minister commissioned
with the adjustment and final settlement of the affairs of the
royal
hacienda (domains) in the Province of Louisiana.
Whereas Don Jose Reynes, an inhabitant and merchant of this city,
has presented himself before this tribunal, soliciting to purchase
from the royal treasury 40,000 superficial arpents of land, of
those vacant and belonging to the Crown, the value of which he
offers to pay, under appraisement, in letters of credit, issued by
the department of the royal treasury, I ordered, in consequence of
said demand, that a certified copy should be furnished by the
secretary of the official letter addressed by this intendancy to
the commissioners appointed for the transfer of this Province, on
the subject of a petition presented by Don Thomas Urquhart, and of
the answer made by said commissioners, and that these be submitted
to the Sen'r Fiscal solicitor of the Crown. Those formalities
having been fulfilled, and no opposition being made to said
petition from the answer given by said Sen'r Fiscal, whose opinion
was favorable thereto, and who recommended that an order be issued
to Colonel Carlos de Grandpre, governor and sub-delegate of the
royal treasury in Baton Rouge, to appoint two citizens of
experience, who in the character of appraisers, with two others
whom the purchaser shall designate, and two assistant witnesses,
should proceed to the appraisement, survey, and mark the limits of
the 40,000 arpents of land, and make a return of the proceedings in
order to carry out the object contemplated. I further ordered to be
furnished a certified copy of the order under which the Auditor of
War was consulted on the proceedings had in the case of the
aforesaid Urquhart, with regard to a similar application, and of
the opinion which he the Auditor of War expressed; and, this having
been done, I approved the same, directing an order to be sent to
the said governor and sub-delegate of the royal treasury, as
recommended by the Sen'r Fiscal, and for the purposes which he
determined, which
Page 50 U. S. 130
was accordingly done, and in virtue of said order, the
operations of survey were performed, and forthwith were measured,
surveyed, the limits defined, and marked with stakes, of the 40,000
superficial arpents of land solicited by Don Jose Reynes, all of
which land is in one body or tract, situated in the District of
Baton Rouge, and in the spot which will be named hereafter, with a
description of the boundaries, by the compass, and situation."
"This tract of land was valued at $6,000, or at the rate of 15
cents per superficial arpent; which appraisement I ordered to be
submitted to the Sen'r Fiscal, who approved it, and decided that,
on payment being made by Don Jose Reynes in the royal coffers of
said sum of $6,000, the same being the value of the land, say
40,000 superficial arpents, according to the figurative plan, also
the payment of the duty of
media anata half-yearly
tribute, and 18 percent for the transportation of this tribute to
the Kingdom of Castilla, a title of property should be given to
him. That agreeably and in conformity with this order of the Sen'r
Fiscal, I ordered that the Surveyor General, Don Carlos Trudeau,
should examine the operations, or proceedings of survey, made by
Don Vincente Pintado; and if he found them correct, that he should
record in his books the plan representing the 40,000 arpents of
land solicited by the aforesaid Reynes, and furnish a copy of said
plan to accompany the title. That, these formalities having been
complied with, I approved, by an act bearing date of 19 December
last, the valuation made of said 40,000 superficial arpents, and
ordered that the documents should be sent to the minister of the
royal treasury for a liquidation of the value of the land; and, on
its being shown that the amount due to the royal treasury had been
entirely paid in the royal coffers, in certificates of credit, as
proposed by said Don Jose Reynes, also with the sum for the media
anata half-yearly tribute to the King, and for its transportation
to Spain, that then a title of property, in due form, should be
given to the party. From the receipt of payment given by the
ministry of the royal treasury, bearing date 31 December last,
which receipt is with the proceedings to which I refer, it appears
that the said Don Jose Reynes did pay in the royal coffers 49,416
reales bits of silver: 48,000 for the price of the land, at 15
cents per arpent, and the balance, 1,416 reales, for the 2 1/2
percent for the half-yearly tribute, and 18 percent for the
transportation of tribute to Spain; in consequence of which, and it
being evident, from the plan and proceedings of survey furnished by
the Surveyor General, Don Carlos Trudeau, bearing No. 1,672, that
the said 40,000 superficial arpents are situated in the district of
Baton
Page 50 U. S. 131
Rouge, at four miles and one-third south of the boundary line
between the domains of his Catholic Majesty and the United States
of America, bounded on the north by lands belonging to Jayme Jorda,
a captain of the army, and those of an officer of the same grade,
Don Manuel de Sanzos, and on the other sides by vacant lands, the
River Comite passing through the center of the said 40,000 arpents,
which are also intersected by a branch of said river commonly
called the Canaveral."
"Therefore, and agreeably to the power delegated to me, I do
hereby grant, under title of seal, to the above-named Don Jose
Reynes, the 40,000 superficial arpents of land which he petitioned
for, in the spot, and within the district of Baton Rouge, where
they have at his instance been measured, bounded, and surveyed,
under the aforesaid limits, as represented by the plan and
measurement above cited, all of which, for the better understanding
of what is here set forth, as well as the directions, distances,
and localities, shall be annexed to this title; and I impart to him
Don Jose Reynes entire and clear dominion over said 40,000 arpents
of land, that, as his own lands, from having purchased and paid for
them to the royal treasury, he may possess, cultivate, and dispose
of them at his pleasure, and I do authorize him to take possession
of them, in which possession I do hereby place him, without
prejudice to any third person who might have a better right."
"In testimony whereof, I have ordered these presents to be
delivered under my signature, sealed with my coat of arms, and
countersigned by the undersigned, notary of the royal treasury,
who, as well as the principal comptroller, will register this
act."
"Given in New Orleans on 2 January, 1804."
"[Signed] JUAN VENTURA MORALES"
"By order of the Sen'r Intendant."
"CARLOS XIMENES"
"The above title has been registered in folio 37 to 40 of the
book under my charge destined to the effect, and for titles of said
class."
"[Signed] CARLOS XIMENES"
"Registered in the office of the principal comptroller for the
army, and also in the office of the royal treasury, both of which
are under our charge, at page 38 of the book destined to that
effect and purpose."
Signed,
"GILBERTO LEONARD"
"MANUEL ARMIRES"
On the 26th of May, 1824, Congress passed an act 4 Stat. 52,
from which the following are extracts.
Page 50 U. S. 132
The first section declares:
"That it shall and may be lawful for any person or persons, or
their legal representatives, claiming lands, tenements, or
hereditaments in that part of the late Province of Louisiana which
is now included within the State of Missouri, by virtue of any
French or Spanish grant, concession, warrant, or order of survey,
legally made, granted, or issued, before 10 March, 1804, by the
proper authorities, to any person or persons resident in the
Province at the date thereof, or on or before 10 March, 1804, and
which was protected or secured by the treaty between the United
States of America and the French Republic, of 30 April, 1803, and
which might have been perfected into a complete title under and in
conformity to the laws, usages, and customs of the government under
which the same originated, had not the sovereignty of the country
been transferred to the United States,"
to present a petition to the district court of Missouri, setting
forth their claim, and praying that the validity of such title of
claim might be inquired into and decided by the said court. The
United States were to put in their answer by the district Attorney,
and the proceedings in the cause, were to be conducted according to
the rules of a court of equity.
By the second section it is enacted:
"And the said court shall have full power and authority to hear
and determine all questions arising in said cause relative to the
title of the claimants; the extent, locality, and boundaries of the
said claim, or other matters connected therewith fit and proper to
be heard and determined; and by a final decree to settle and
determine the question of the validity of the title, according to
the law of nations; the stipulations of any treaty, and proceedings
under the same; the several acts of Congress in relation thereto;
and the laws and ordinances of the government from which it is
alleged to have been derived; and all other questions properly
arising between the claimants and the United States."
The Act of 17 June, 1844 5 Stat. 676, entitled
"An act to provide for the adjustment of land claims within the
states of Missouri, Arkansas, and Louisiana, and in those parts of
the States of Mississippi and Alabama south of the thirty-first
degree of north latitude, and between the Mississippi and Perdido
Rivers,"
revived and reenacted so much of the Act of 26 May, 1824,
entitled
"An act to enable claimants to land within the State of Missouri
and Territory of Arkansas to institute proceedings to try the
validity of their claims,"
so far as the same related to the State of Missouri, and
extended the same to the States of Louisiana and Arkansas, and to
so much
Page 50 U. S. 133
of the States of Mississippi and Alabama as is above
described,
"in the same way, and with the same rights, powers, and
jurisdictions, to every extent they can be rendered applicable, as
if these states had been enumerated in the original act hereby
revived, and the enactments expressly applied to them as to the
State of Missouri, and the district court, and the judges thereof,
in each of these states, shall have and exercise the like
jurisdiction over the land claims in their respective states and
districts, originating with either the Spanish, French, or British
authorities, as by said act was given to the court and the judge
thereof in the State of Missouri."
The Treaty of Cession by Spain to France is dated 1 October,
1800, and its terms will be found stated in the Treaty of Cession
by France to the United States, dated 30 April, 1803 8 Stat. 200.
The act of delivery by Spain to France took place on 30 November,
1803, and by France to the United States on the 20 December, 1803.
State Papers, Foreign Relations, Vol. II., page 582
et
seq.
On 13 March, 1846, Reynes filed the following petition:
"To the Honorable the district court of the United States in and
for the District of Louisiana."
"The petition of Joseph Reynes, who resides in the City of New
Orleans, respectfully represents: "
"That by inheritance, being the sole heir of his father, Joseph
Reynes, now deceased, he is the owner of forty thousand arpents of
land, situated in what was formerly called, under the government of
the King of Spain, the District of Baton Rouge, four miles and
one-third south of the boundary line between the then Territory of
the King of Spain and the Territory of the United States of
America, being bounded on the north by lands the property of Jaymes
Jorda and by property of Manuel de Sanzos, and on the other sides
by vacant lands, as will more fully appear by an authentic copy of
the original act of sale and grant by Juan Ventura Morales,
commissary of the army, Intendant and Superintendent
ad
interim for the Province of West Florida, minister charged
with the final settlement of all affairs relating to the royal
treasury of the King of Spain in Louisiana, to the said Joseph
Reynes, deceased, and to the documents, plans, and surveys appended
to the same, all of which are authentic, and are referred to and
made a part of this petition."
"Petitioner further alleges that said land is believed to be
situated in the Parishes of East Feliciana and St. Helena,
according to the present territorial divisions of this state. "
Page 50 U. S. 134
"Petitioner alleges, that his said father acquired the said land
by purchase and grant from said Juan Ventura Morales, the duly
authorized officer and agent of the government of Spain, the
sovereignty over the territory in which the said land is situated
at the time of the aforesaid purchase and grant. That said Morales
had full authority from the government of Spain to sell the said
land, and to grant a good and perfect title thereto."
"All of which more fully appears from the annexed documents, and
also from the original grant from Morales, which has been mutilated
by robbers, who entered and robbed the dwelling house of the
petitioner. The said original act in the form in which it now
exists is hereunto annexed, together with the plan of the original
survey."
"Petitioner alleges, that the survey was made and returned by
the duly authorized officers of the government of Spain, on 19
November, A.D. 1803, and that on 31 December, A.D. 1803, the money
was paid by his said father to the government of Spain for the
land, and that the above-mentioned grant was made to his father on
2 January, A.D. 1804."
"That at the date of the said sale and grant to his father, he
was a resident of the Province of Louisiana. That the said grant
was protected by the Treaty between the United States and the
French Republic of 30 April, 1803. And that said grant might have
been perfected into a complete title under and in conformity to the
laws, usages, and customs of the government of Spain, had not the
sovereignty of the county been transferred to the United
States."
"Petitioner further alleges, that the said grant did convey to
his said father a full and complete title to the said land, under
the laws, customs, and usages of the government of Spain."
"Petitioner alleges, that his claim to the above-mentioned land
was presented to the commissioner of the United States for
confirmation, and the same was refused, as will be more fully seen
by reference to the report of Jaymes O. Cosby, the said
commissioner, to be found in the 18th volume of the American State
Papers at pages 59 and 66."
"That the United States government has refused, and still
refuses, to recognize and confirm the said claim, and has asserted
a claim to the same. And that various persons have pretended to set
up claims to said land adverse to the rights of the petitioner,
to-wit, the following persons: L. Saunders M. Harris H. Hardesty,
Ira Bowman, John Morgan, Josiah Benton, Z. S. Lyons, and Henry
Hawford. "
Page 50 U. S. 135
"Wherefore petitioner prays, that the District Attorney of the
United States, in behalf of the United States, and the said L.
Saunders M. Harris H. Hardesty, Ira Bowman, John Morgan, Josiah
Benton, Z. S. Lyons, and Henry Hawford, be cited to answer this
petition, and that, after all due proceedings had, the validity of
petitioner's claim be inquired into, and that he be decreed to be
the true and lawful owner of the said forty thousand arpents of
land. And that for so much of said land as shall be ascertained to
have been sold by the United States, the petitioner shall be
allowed a like quantity of the public lands belonging to the
government of the United States, as provided for by law, and for
all other relief in the premises &c."
"[Signed] ELMORE & KING,
Solicitors for
Complainant"
"Joseph Reynes, being duly sworn, deposeth that the allegations
of the above petition are true."
"[Signed] REYNES"
"Sworn to and subscribed before me, this 13 March, 1846."
"[Signed] L. E. SIMONDS,
Deputy Clerk"
Annexed to this petition were the above-recited certificates of
survey and grant.
In June, 1846, sundry witnesses were examined on behalf of the
petitioner, for the purpose of verifying the signatures &c.
The district attorney appeared on behalf of the United States,
and traversed the petition. The other defendants allowed judgment
to go against them by default.
On 3 November, 1846, the court pronounced the following
decree:
"The court having heretofore taken this case under
consideration, and having maturely considered the same, doth now
order, adjudge, and decree that the petitioner recover the land
claimed in his petition, and described in the survey of Pintado,
revised by Trudeau, appended thereto, and if it should happen that
any portion of said land has been sold or otherwise disposed of by
the United States, it is ordered that for such portions the
petitioner have the right to enter other lands belonging to the
United States, at any land office in Louisiana, according to the
provisions of the eleventh section of the act of 1824. And it
appearing by reference to the order of this Court, dated 17 June,
1846, that petitioner's petition has
Page 50 U. S. 136
been heretofore taken
pro confesso, against L. Saunders
M. Harris H. Hardesty, Ira Bowman, John Morgan, Josiah Benton, Z.
S. Lyons, and Henry Hawford, and the said defendants not having
entered their names to the said petition, or taken any steps to set
aside the said order taking the petition
pro confesso, it
is further ordered and decreed that the petitioner recover the
above-described land from the said defendants, unless the portions
they may claim shall have been sold to them by the government of
the United States, or otherwise disposed of by the said government
to the said defendants, in which event the petitioner is to obtain
relief in the manner above pointed out, where the government of the
United States have sold or otherwise disposed of any portion of the
land he claims."
"Judgment rendered November 3, 1846; judgment signed November
12, 1846."
"[Signed] THEO. H. McCALEB,
U.S. Judge"
From this decree the United States appealed to this Court.
Page 50 U. S. 143
MR. JUSTICE DANIEL delivered the opinion of the Court.
The petitioner in the court below, as the heir of Jose Reynes,
claimed under a grant from the government of Spain,
Page 50 U. S. 144
forty thousand arpents of land, lying within what was formerly
the District of Baton Rouge, now making portions of the Parishes of
East Feliciana and St. Helena in the State of Louisiana. The
documents upon which this claim is asserted, so far as the
formalities entering into the creation of a complete title under
the Spanish government are requisite, appear to be regular and to
have been admitted in evidence without exception. No exception
either has been taken to the verity of the signatures and
certificates appended to those documents or to the truth of the
official position of the agents by whom those signatures and
certificates have been made. The questions arising upon this record
grow out of considerations beyond the mere facts admitted as above
mentioned, considerations involving the powers of the agents, whose
acts are relied on, as affected by the treaties, by the political
sovereignty, and by the legislation of the United States.
The petition in this case, if not by its own terms, has, by the
arguments adduced in its support, been rested upon the Act of
Congress of May 26, 1824, reenacted by the act of June 17, 1844,
and extended in its operation to claims originating with either the
Spanish, French, or British authorities, by which act it seems to
be supposed that, beyond the mere permission therein given to
proceed against the United States as defendants in their own
courts, some essential rights in the subjects of pursuit have been
originated or superinduced on behalf of claimants -- rights which
but for the law of 1824 could not have existed. The character of
this hypothesis requires particular examination, as upon its
correctness or its fallacy must depend the fate of this claim and
of every other similarly situated. Pursuing this theory, it is
insisted that the petitioner the defendant in error here, as the
heir of a purchaser for valuable consideration from the Spanish
authorities, and holding the evidences of a perfect title from
those authorities, is now permitted to show that he falls within
the class of persons whose rights have been protected both by the
Treaty of St. Ildefonso, between Spain and France of 1 October,
1800, and by the Treaty of Paris between France and the United
States of 30 April, 1803, and who are specially referred to and
provided for in the act of 1824. In answer to this pretension of
right under the act of 1824, it might perhaps be sufficient to
observe that if this right be asserted in virtue of a perfect
Spanish title, it would seem to be comprised neither within the
mischief nor the remedy contemplated by the statute. The mischief
intended to be provided for by the act of 1824 was the inchoate or
incomplete condition of titles having a fair
Page 50 U. S. 145
and just and legal inception under either the French or Spanish
governments of Louisiana, but which, by reason of the abdication or
superseding of those governments, and by that cause only, had not
been completed.
The remedy was the permission to bring such titles before the
courts of the United States, and there to render them complete, and
to establish them by proof of the legality and justice of their
origin and character. Such, then, being the mischief declared and
such the remedy provided by the statute, it is difficult to
perceive the reason or the authority for bringing before the courts
merely for supervision titles alleged to be already perfected under
the unquestionable and competent authority of either Spain or
France. With regard to titles so derived and so consummated there
is no provision made by the statute. None could be requisite, and
there could, with reference to such titles, be nothing for the
courts to act upon, nothing which it was competent for them to
consider. Conceding for the present that the title before us has
not been completed, the inquiry presents itself whether in other
respects it corresponds with the description of claims authorized
by the law to be brought before the courts for completion and
establishment. Amongst the requisites demanded for these titles by
the statute are the following. That they shall be legally granted,
by the proper authorities to persons resident within the Province
of Louisiana at the time, or on or before 10 March, 1804; that they
should be such claims as were protected or secured by the Treaty
between the United States and the French Republic of 30 April,
1803, and which might have been perfected into complete titles
under and in conformity to the laws, usages, and customs of the
government under which the same originated had not the sovereignty
of the country been transferred to the United States. With regard
to the modes of proceeding by which these claims are to be brought
before the courts, the statute next prescribes that it shall be by
petition setting forth fully and plainly the nature of the claim to
the lands &c., particularly stating the date of the grant,
concession, warrant, or order of survey, under which the claim is
made, by whom issued &c.
By the second section of the statute, it is enacted that every
petition which shall be prosecuted under its provisions
"shall be conducted according to the rules of a court of equity,
except that the answer of the district Attorney of the United
States shall not be required to by verified by his oath, and the
said court shall have full power and authority to hear and
determine all questions arising in said cause, relative to the
title of the claimant, the extent, locality, and boundaries of
the
Page 50 U. S. 146
claim or other matters connected therewith, fit and proper to be
heard and determined, and by a final decree to settle and determine
the question of the validity of the title, according to the laws of
nations, the stipulations of any treaty, and proceedings under the
same, the several acts of Congress in relation thereto, and the
laws and ordinances of the governments from which it is alleged to
have been derived."
In part compliance with the act of Congress, the petitioner
alleges that his father acquired the land claimed now situated
within the parishes of East Feliciana and St. Helena in the State
of Louisiana by purchase and grant from Juan Ventura Morales, the
duly authorized officer and agent of the Spanish government, the
then sovereignty over the territory in which the said land is
situated, at the time of the purchase and grant; and that Morales
had full authority from the government of Spain to sell the said
land, and to grant a good and perfect title thereto. The petitioner
goes on to allege, a survey made and returned by the duly
authorized officer of the Spanish government, on 19 November, 1803;
payment of the purchase money, on 30 December, 1803, and the
emanation or issuing of the grant to the father of the petitioner,
on 2 January, 1804. In support of the petition there are made
exhibits, the certificates of the deputy and principal surveyors,
Pintado and Trudeau, and the grant from Morales to the father of
the petitioner, for the land in question; these documents
respectively correspond in dates with the allegations of the
petition.
Upon the aforegoing allegations and documents it is insisted for
the defendant in error, that by operation of the acts of 1824 and
1844 already cited, and by virtue of stipulations in the Treaties
of St. Ildefonso and of Paris, and by the rules of the law of
nations as applicable to those treaties, his rights to the land
granted by Morales to his father have been protected, and that the
petitioner is entitled thereto, as adjudged to him by the district
court.
With respect to that interpretation of the acts of Congress
which would expound them as conferring on applicants new rights not
previously existing, we would remark that such an interpretation
accords neither with the language nor the obvious spirit of those
laws; for if we look to the language of the act of 1824, we find
that the grants, surveys &c., which are authorized to be
brought before the courts, are those only which had been legally
made, granted, or issued, and which were also protected by treaty.
The legal integrity of these claims involving necessarily the
competency of the authority
Page 50 U. S. 147
which conferred them was a qualification associated by the law
with that of their being protected by treaty. And as to the spirit
and intention of the law, had it designed to create new rights, or
to enlarge others previously existing, the natural and obvious
means of so doing would have been a direct declaration to that
effect; certainly not a provision placing these alleged rights in
an adversary position to the government, to be vindicated by mere
dint of evidence not to be resisted. The provision of the second
section of the act of 1824, declaring that petitions presented
under that act shall "be conducted according to the rules of a
court of equity," should be understood rather as excluding the
technicalities of proceedings in courts, than as in any degree
varying the rights of parties litigant; as designed to prevent
delays in adjudicating upon titles, as is further shown in another
part of the same sentence, where it is declared that these
petitions shall be tried without continuance, unless for cause
shown. The limitations, too, maintained as to the character of
claims and that imposed upon the courts in adjudicating upon them,
is further evinced in that part of the same section which says,
that the court shall hear and determine all questions relative to
the title of the claimants, the extent, locality, and boundaries of
the claim, and by final decree shall settle and determine the
questions of the validity of the title, according to the law of
nations, the stipulations of any treaty, and proceedings under the
same, the several acts of Congress, and the laws and ordinances of
the government from which it is alleged to have been derived. In
some aspects of these claims, they were properly to be denominated
equitable. They were to be equitable in the sense that they should
not be inequitable or wrongful -- that they should be rightful, and
founded in justice, and they were necessarily to be equitable
insofar as they were incomplete, and could not therefore be
maintained as perfect legal titles. But in no proper acceptation
could they be called equitable titles, as implying any addition to
their strength or any diminution of the rights of the United
States, as affected by the statute.
We come now to the inquiry whether the grant in question was
protected either by the treaty of retrocession from Spain to the
French Republic, or by the Treaty of Paris, by which the Territory
of Louisiana was ceded to the United States. The treaties above
mentioned, the public acts and proclamations of the Spanish and
French governments, and those of their publicly recognized agents,
in carrying into effect those treaties, though not made exhibits in
this cause, are historical and notorious facts, of which the court
can take regular judicial
Page 50 U. S. 148
notice, and reference to which is implied in the investigation
before us.
It is proper in this place again to refer to the date of the
certificate of survey on which the grant in question was issued,
and to that of the grant itself. The former purports to have been
given on 19 November, 1803, the latter to have been issued by
Morales on 2 January, 1804. The dates of the Treaties of St.
Ildefonso and of Paris have already been mentioned -- that of the
former being 1 October, 1800, that of the latter, 30 April, 1803.
In the construction of treaties, the same rules which govern other
compacts properly apply. They must be considered as binding from
the period of their execution; their operation must be understood
to take effect from that period, unless it shall, by some condition
or stipulation in the compact itself, be postponed. Were it
allowable at this day to construe the Treaty of St. Ildefonso as
not being operative from the signature thereof, its operation could
by no construction be postponed to a period later than 21 March,
1801, at which time, by the treaty negotiated by Lucien Bonaparte
and the Prince of Peace, Spain accepted from the French Republic
the Grand Duchy of Tuscany in full satisfaction of the provision
stipulated in favor of the Duke of Parma, or at the farthest, the
government of Spain must be concluded, as to satisfaction of the
stipulation above mentioned, by the royal order issued at Barcelona
on 15 October, 1802, announcing from the King to his subjects the
retrocession of Louisiana, and giving orders for the evacuation of
the country by all Spanish authorities, and its delivery to General
Victor, or any other officer authorized by the French Republic to
take possession.
In obedience to this order, formal possession was on 30
November, 1803, delivered by Salcedo and Casa Calvo, the Spanish
commissioners, to Laussatt, the Prefect and commissioner of the
French Republic. The treaty between the United States and the
Republic of France contains no article or condition by which its
operation could be suspended. It declares that the Republic, in
pursuance particularly of the third article of the Treaty of St.
Ildefonso, has an incontestable title to the domain and to the
possession of the territory, and cedes it to the United States in
the name of the French Republic forever, and in full sovereignty,
with all its rights and appurtenances. This treaty therefore
operated from its date; its subsequent ratification by the American
government, and the formal transfer of the country to the American
commissioners on 20 December, 1803, have relation to the date of
the instrument. The rights
Page 50 U. S. 149
and powers of sovereignty, on the part of Spain, over the
territory, ceased with her transfer of that sovereignty to another
government; it could not exist in different governments or nations
at the same time. The power to preserve the peace and order of the
community may be admitted to have been in the officers previously
appointed by Spain, until the actual presence of the agents of the
succeeding government; but this would not imply sovereign power
still remaining in Spain -- for if she continued to be sovereign
after expressly conceding her sovereignty to another government,
she might still rightfully resist and control that government; for
sovereignty from its nature is never subordinate. She might, if
still sovereign, notwithstanding her treaty stipulations with
France, have ceded the entire territory to some other nation.
That the government of Spain never supposed that any sovereign
authority was retained by it after the cession to France, is
apparent from the character of the treaty itself, and of the acts
of the Spanish government carrying that treaty into effect. It is a
somewhat curious fact, that there is not in this treaty a single
stipulation or guarantee in favor of the lives or the property of
the subjects or inhabitants of the ceded country, much less a
reservation of power to grant or invest new rights within that
territory. The same characteristic is observable in the royal order
announcing the cession, and also in the formal act of delivery of
the territory. So far from containing any such stipulation or
reservation, the language of his Catholic Majesty may correctly be
understood as conveying an acknowledgment that he had made no
condition or stipulation whatever in behalf of his late subjects,
and had no power to insist on anything of the kind; but had handed
them over to the justice or the liberality of the new government to
whom he had transferred them. Thus, in the order of Barcelona,
after announcing the cession of the territory, and directing the
collection of all the papers and documents relating to the royal
treasury, and to the administration of the colony of Louisiana, in
order to bring them to Spain for the purpose of settling the
accounts, and an inventory of all artillery, arms, ammunition,
effects &c., which belong to him, and an appraisement of them
in order that their value might be reimbursed him by the French
Republic, he uses this language:
"Meanwhile, we hope, for the tranquility of the inhabitants of
said colony, and we promise ourselves, from the sincere amity and
close alliance which unite us to the government of the Republic,
that the said government will issue orders to the governor and
other officers employed in its service that the ecclesiastics and
religious houses employed in the service of the
Page 50 U. S. 150
parishes and missions may continue in the exercise of their
functions and in the enjoyment of their privileges and exemptions
granted to them by the charters of their establishments. That the
ordinary judges may, together with the established tribunals,
continue to administer justice according to the laws and customs in
force in the colony. That the inhabitants may be protected in the
peaceful possession of their property. That all grants of property,
of whatever denomination, made by my governors may be confirmed,
although not confirmed by myself. I hope further that the
government of the Republic will give to its new subjects the same
proofs of protection and affection which they have experienced
under my dominion."
This order from the King is an explicit admission of what the
treaty itself exposes -- namely that no special stipulation had
been made for the protection either of persons or property, that he
regarded his own authority and the dominion of Spain over the
territory as at an end, and that his sole reliance for the
protection and welfare of his late subjects, and even for enforcing
the grants he himself, through his officials, had made to them, was
on the justice and benevolence of the new government. So far as the
acts of the King of Spain are to be considered in connection with
the territory and its inhabitants ceded by him, he appears to have
committed both to those practices and to that discretion which
obtain in civilized communities, wholly uninfluenced by any pledge
or condition exacted by himself.
The proclamation of the Spanish provincial officers is almost a
literal repetition of this royal order. The Treaty of St.
Ildefonso, then, can, by no rule or principle deducible from the
laws of nations, be interpreted as still reserving to Spain, after
the signature of that treaty, the power to grant away the public
domain, for she could have had no right to calculate upon the
mala fides of the French Republic with regard to the
provision for the Duke of Parma, and to make such calculation an
excuse for
mala fides on her own part. But surely no right
under any pretext to grant the public domain could exist in Spain
after the Treaty of Aranjuez of March 21, 1801, between that
country and France, by which the Grand Duchy of Tuscany, that had
been previously ceded to the French Republic, was accepted by Spain
in full satisfaction of the provision agreed to be made for the
Duke of Parma. And least of all could such a power continue in the
government of Spain after the royal order of 15 October, 1802,
proclaiming the retrocession of the Territory of Louisiana and the
fulfillment or satisfaction, of course, of all treaty stipulations
in reference
Page 50 U. S. 151
to that territory, and all this too promulgated under the
signature of the King himself.
It may now be properly asked what, then, are the grants, titles,
or other rights protected by the third article of the Treaty
between the United States and the French Republic of 30 April,
1803, and by the acts of Congress of 1824 and 1844, referring to
that treaty, and to previous acts of the Spanish government? The
third article of the Treaty of Paris of 1803 is in these words:
"The inhabitants of the ceded territory shall be incorporated in
the union of the United States and admitted as soon as possible,
according to the principles of the federal Constitution, to the
enjoyment of all the rights, advantages, and immunities of citizens
of the United States, and in the meantime they shall be maintained
and protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty, property, and
the religion which they profess."
The term "property" in this article will embrace rights either
in possession or in action, property to which the title was
completed, or that to which the title was not yet completed, but in
either acceptation it could be applied only to rights founded in
justice and good faith and based upon authority competent to their
creation. The article above cited cannot without the grossest
perversion be made either to express or imply more than this.
According to this just and obvious rule of interpretation, the
Treaty of Paris of April 30, 1803, by any reference it could be
supposed to have to titles or claims derived from Spain, could
embrace such only as had their origin whilst Spain was the rightful
sovereign over the territory, a period which, by the most liberal
extension of her power, cannot be carried farther than 15 October,
1802, the date of the royal order of Barcelona. Indeed, if not from
the date of the Treaty of St. Ildefonso, yet certainly from 21
March, 1801, grants by Spain of the public domain in Louisiana
would have been frauds upon the French Republic, since by the
treaty of Aranjuez, of the date last mentioned, full satisfaction
of the terms stipulated for the Duke of Parma was acknowledged by
Spain. Looking more particularly to the documents on which this
claim is founded, we find it recited in the certificate of Pintado,
that the land in question had been surveyed by him in obedience to
a decree of the General Intendancy of the Province, under date of 1
September, 1803. This decree is not produced in evidence, but, upon
the supposition that it was in the record and properly verified,
the question of the competency of the authority to order it would
stand precisely as it does in its absence. Turning next to the
grant itself, there are, in addition to the fact of
Page 50 U. S. 152
the date of that instrument, other circumstances disclosed upon
its face, showing not only the want of authority in the grantor to
make a good title, but which bring home to the grantor and to the
individual soliciting the grant full knowledge that the title to
whatever might be properly considered Louisiana, at least, no
longer remained in the Spanish government. The grant is dated at
New Orleans. It recites the application of Reynes for 40,000
arpents of land, to be paid for in letters of credit formerly
issued by the provincial government, and then goes on to state
that, in consequence of the petition, Morales had caused a
certified copy of the letter addressed by that Intendancy to the
commissioners appointed for the transfer of the Province of
Louisiana, to be submitted, with the petition, to the Solicitor of
the Crown.
This document, then, excludes all doubt as to the knowledge of
the parties of the cession to the United States of Louisiana by
whatever might have been its real boundaries. It is signed by
Morales, not as being an officer of the Territory of Louisiana, but
as Intendant of the Province of West Florida, after Louisiana had
passed to two sovereign states since its possession by Spain, and
after actual possession had been delivered to the United States. It
is clear, then, that the documents exhibited and relied on by the
appellee could by their own terms convey no title within the
Territory of Louisiana. Superinduced upon our conclusions drawn
from the treaties above mentioned, and from the laws of nations
applicable to their construction, is the positive legislative
declaration in the Act of Congress of March 26, 1804,
"pronouncing all grants for lands within the territories ceded
by the French Republic to the United States by the Treaty of 30
April, 1803, the title whereof was at the date of the Treaty of St.
Ildefonso in the Crown, government, or nation of Spain, and every
act and proceeding subsequent thereto, of whatsoever nature,
towards the obtaining of any grant, title, or claim to such lands,
under whatsoever authority transacted or pretended, be, and the
same are hereby declared to be, and to have been from the
beginning, null, void, and of no effect in law or equity."
This act of 1804 explicitly avows the opinion of the government
of the United States as to any power or right in Spain at any time
after the Treaty of St. Ildefonso. It covers the whole subject of
grants, concessions, titles &c., derived from Spain at any time
subsequent to the treaty, stamping upon all such grants &c.,
the most utter reprobation; denying to them any validity or merit,
either legal or equitable. This act of 1804 has never been directly
repealed. It still operates upon all the grants, concessions
&c., embraced within its provisions,
Page 50 U. S. 153
except so far as these provisions may be shown to have been
modified by posterior legislation.
And it has been invariably held, and indeed must follow as of
necessity, that imperfect titles derived from a foreign government
can only be perfected by the legislation of the United States. But
it is argued for the appellee, that as the land in dispute did not
lie within the territory of which France obtained from Spain actual
occupancy, or of which the United States ever obtained a like
occupancy until possession thereof was taken under the proclamation
of President Madison, of October 10, 1810, and as the Spanish
authorities in the meantime, as a government
de facto,
retained possession, they could in this character invest their
grantees with inchoate or equitable rights, which, under the
privileges bestowed by the acts of 1824 and 1844, might be matured
into perfect titles as against the United States. Without stopping
to remark upon the caution which should ever be manifested in the
admission of claims which, if not founded in violence or in mere
might, yet refer us for their origin certainly not to regular
unquestioned legal or political authority, it may be safely said,
that claims founded upon the acts of a government
de facto
must be sustained, if at all, by the nature and character of such
acts themselves, as proceeding from the exercise of the inherent
and rightful powers of an independent government. They can never be
supported upon the authority of such a government, if shown to have
originated in a violation of its own compacts, and in derogation of
rights it had expressly conceded to others. Every claim asserted
upon wrong, such as this latter position implies, would be estopped
and overthrown by alleging the compact or concession it sought to
violate. Thus, if Spain, by the Treaty of St. Ildefonso, did in
truth cede to France the lands lying between the Mississippi and
Perdido, she could not, as a government
de jure or
de
facto, without the assent of the United States, possessing all
the rights of the French Republic, make subsequent grants of the
same lands either to communities or to individuals. Her grants
could not be regarded as the inherent, competent, and uncommitted
proceedings of an independent government
de facto; they
would be met and made null by her own previous acknowledgment.
Whether, by the treaties of St. Ildefonso and of Paris, the
territory south of the thirty degree of north latitude, and lying
between the Mississippi and Perdido, was ceded to the United
States, is a question into which this Court will not now inquire.
The legislative and Executive Departments of the government have
determined that the entire territory was so
Page 50 U. S. 154
ceded. This Court have solemnly and repeatedly declared that
this was a matter peculiarly belonging to the cognizance of those
departments, and that the propriety of their determination it was
not within the province of the judiciary to contravene or question.
See the cases of
Foster and Elam v.
Neilson, 2 Pet. 253, and of
Garcia v.
Lee, 12 Pet. 511. In the former case the Court said
--
"If a Spanish grantee had obtained possession of the land in
dispute, so as to be the defendant, would a court of the United
States maintain his title under a Spanish grant made subsequent to
the acquisition of Louisiana, singly on the principle that the
Spanish construction of the Treaty of St. Ildefonso was right, and
the American construction wrong? Such a decision would subvert
those principles which govern the relations between the legislative
and judicial departments, and mark the limits of each."
Substituting the United States as a defendant in the place of a
private litigant, a privilege permitted by the law of 1824, the
case supposed and satisfactorily answered in the quotation just
made is in all its features precisely that now before the court,
and to sustain the pretensions of the appellee, it is indispensable
that the American construction of the Treaty of St. Ildefonso be
rejected, and the Spanish construction held to be the true one. In
the case of
Garcia v. Lee, this Court said --
"The controversy in relation to the country between the
Mississippi and Perdido Rivers, and the validity of the grants made
by Spain in the disputed territory after the cession of Louisiana
to the United States, were carefully examined, and decided, in the
case of
Foster and Elam v. Neilson. The Supreme Court in
that case decided that the question of boundary between the United
States and Spain was a question for the political department of the
government; that the legislative and executive branches having
decided the question, the courts of the United States are bound to
regard the boundary determined by them to be the true one. That
grants made by the Spanish authorities of lands which, according to
this boundary line, belonged to the United States, gave no title to
the grantees in opposition to those claiming under the United
States."
Has the law, as expounded in the cases of
Foster and Elam v.
Neilson, and of
Garcia v. Lee, been in any respect
changed by the act of 1844? Has that act enlarged the rights of
claimants under French or Spanish titles, or restricted the rights
of the United States as derived from the Treaties of St. Ildefonso
and of Paris? Beyond an extension of the modes of proceeding
allowed by the act of 1824 to claimants in Missouri, to persons
claiming under Spanish, French, or British titles, within the
States of Louisiana
Page 50 U. S. 155
and Arkansas, and within those portions of the states of
Mississippi and Alabama lying south of the thirty-first degree of
north latitude and between the Rivers Mississippi and Perdido, we
can perceive no change in the act of 1824 effected by the act of
1844. We are unable to perceive any addition made by the latter act
to the intrinsic strength of the claims allowed to be prosecuted,
or any dispensation from proofs of their
bona fides, or of
a single condition prescribed in relation to their origin and
character by the act of 1824. What are the conditions prescribed by
this act as indispensable to the allowance and establishment of
titles derived from France or Spain has been stated in a previous
part of this opinion, and having shown the title of the appellee to
be wanting in all those conditions, it is the opinion of this Court
that his petition should have been rejected -- and therefore that
the judgment of the district court pronounced in this cause should
be reversed, and the same is hereby
Reversed.
Order
This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record
from the District Court of the United States for the District of
Louisiana and was argued by counsel. On consideration whereof it is
the opinion of this Court that the title of the petitioner is null
and void. Whereupon it is now here ordered and adjudged by this
Court that the judgment of the said district court in this cause be
and the same is hereby reversed, and that this cause be and the
same is hereby remanded to the said district court with directions
to dismiss the petition of the claimant in this cause.
