Following out the principles applied to the construction of
treaties in the cases of
United States v. Reynes and
Davis v. Police jury of Concordia, in 8 Howard, this Court
now decides that a grant of land in Louisiana, issued by the
representative of the King of France in 1765 was void, the Province
of Louisiana having been ceded by the King of France to the King of
Spain in 1762.
The title to the land described in this void grant was vested,
therefore, in the King of Spain, and remained in him until the
Treaty of St. Ildefonso. It then passed to France, and by the
treaty of Paris became vested in the United States.
None of the acts of Congress have confirmed this grant.
The act of 1805 2 Stat. 324 required three things in order to
effect a confirmation.
Page 51 U. S. 610
1st, that the parties should be residents; 2d, that the Indian
title should have been extinguished; 3d, that the land should have
been actually inhabited and cultivated by the grantees, or for
their use. In the present case, these conditions were not complied
with.
The Act of May 26, 1824, in part reenacted by the Act of June
17, 1844, 5 Stat. 676, did not create any new rights or enlarge
those previously existing, but only allowed claims to be presented
to the court which would otherwise have been barred.
This was a petition presented to the district court under the
act of 1824, relating to land titles in Missouri, as revived and
made applicable to Louisiana by the act of 1844.
The history of the title claimed by the heirs of D'Auterive, so
far as it may be necessary to explain the opinion of the court, was
as follows.
A copy of the following grant, issued in 1765, was certified by
the register of the land office at New Orleans to be found upon the
records in his possession, and forming part of the archives of the
office.
"Charles Philippe Aubry, Chevalier of the Royal and Military
Order of St. Louis, commanding for the King in Louisiana, and Denis
Nicholas Foucault, being the Intendant Commissary of this Province
of Louisiana."
"Upon the demand made by Messrs. D'Auterive and Masse, partners,
to grant to them a parcel of land named La Prairie du Vermilion,
bounded east by the River Des Tortues and the Lake Du Tasse, north
by the Mauvais Bois, west by the River Vermilion and south by a
muddy prairie, considering their petition above, and in other part,
and for consideration of the cession made by them to the Acadian
families, recently arrived in this Province, of the land occupied
by them during a long period, in the Attakapas, and in
consideration also of the advantages which may result for this
capital of the great establishment in vacheries that they propose
themselves to do on the said land named La Prairie du Vermilion, by
the quantity of cattle they may bring to market in a short period,
we have conceded, and do concede to them by these presents the said
land, for them and their heirs to enjoy and dispose of the same in
full ownership and usufruct, as a thing belonging to them, except
against titles or possession anterior to these to the contrary,
provided that said land lies on this side of the limits which have
been established of the French and Spanish possessions in this part
of the country, and provided also, that they do deliver to us the
titles of the land which they have ceded to the Acadian families,
and also under the conditions
Page 51 U. S. 611
that one year from this date they shall establish the said
vacherie, in default whereof the said land shall become part of the
King's domain, who may dispose of the same as if the said
concession had never been granted, and also with the burden by them
to support and pay the seigneurial rights, if any hereafter be
established in this colony. We also reserve for his Majesty all the
timber necessary for the construction of forts, stores, and other
public works that he has ordered to be done or may order in the
future, even for the refitting and careening of his men-of-war,
whenever the same will be necessary; and also the necessary ground
for the royal highways and fortifications."
"Given in New Orleans, under the seals of our arms and the
countersign of our secretaries 2 March, 1765."
"[Signed] AUBRY AND FOUCAULT"
"[Countersigned] -- SOUBIE & DUVERGE"
The decision of the court being that this grant was invalid when
made, it is not necessary to trace out the assignment of his share
from Masse to D'Auterive, by which it was alleged that the latter
became the sole proprietor.
On 6 February, 1835, Congress passed an Act, 4 Stat. 749,
entitled "An act for the final adjustment of claims to lands in the
State of Louisiana."
By this act, claims recognized by former laws as valid but which
had not been confirmed were to be presented to the register and
receiver of the land office where the lands lie, with the evidence
in support of the same, who were to report the same to the
Secretary of the Treasury with their opinion of the validity of
each claim, and which report was to be laid before Congress, with
the opinion of the Commissioner of the General Land Office touching
the validity of the respective claims.
This claim was presented to the register and receiver, together
with a great mass of evidence in its support, which it is not
necessary here to state. On account of the voluminous nature of the
papers, the claim was not included in a report made by the
Commissioner on 15 May, 1840. But in February, 1842, the then
register and receiver took up the subject and made a report thereon
to the Secretary of the Treasury, from which the following is an
extract:
"The peculiar circumstances which seem to involve this claim,
its unwarrantable neglect, firstly by the heirs themselves, and
lastly by the former boards of this office, and the unsuccessful
efforts of the Honorable Edward Livingston to obtain any action of
Congress upon it, and the very heavy
Page 51 U. S. 612
charges and expenses which the heirs have been at in the
protection and prosecution of their rights have induced us to
examine with the greatest circumspection and attention all the
documents of title filed in this claim. We have given it throughout
a mature and deliberate investigation, and, seeing the pacific
views of the claimants in their renouncement of their rights to any
part of the said land to which a title has been obtained either by
French or Spanish grant, private entry, or otherwise, that may fall
within the limits of their grant, and from the fact that the patent
mentioned in this claim corresponds with one on the abstract of
patents certified by the register of New Orleans, for the use of
this office, consequently making it a complete title in form, with
no act of the sovereign remaining to be done that the title of the
land might be fully vested in D'Auterive, think that a confirmation
of such a title is scarcely necessary, though it may be useful.
Congress never asserted the right to annul, restrict, or question
any genuine complete grant which has been made by the former
governments; they were regarded as sacred documents, and respected
by the treaty of cession; it was not obligatory on the holders of
complete patents to file them with the registers and the receivers.
By the fifth section of the Act of 2 March, 1805, the registers and
receivers were requested to make a report on all complete French
and Spanish grants, the evidence of which, though not thus filed,
may be found on record in the public records of such grants; it was
evident the reports on such titles were required for the purpose of
ascertaining what lands had ceased to belong to the public
domain."
"If the intention of Congress had been to subject these claims
to their scrutiny, they would have required of the owners to file
them; if the board, on finding in the public records the evidence
of a complete grant, would have made any other than a favorable
report on it, Congress would never have permitted such a decision;
the boards were only to decide on the simple recorded proof -- that
is, the official copy of the grant -- and were to consider it as
conclusive evidence; it has accordingly been decided by the supreme
court of this state as well as the United States court that a
complete grant is complete evidence of title without any
confirmation, and viewing the grant of the claimants in this report
as of a similar character, and perfectly satisfied as regards the
sale from Masse to D'Auterive, the testimony in proof thereof being
ample and complete, we cannot do otherwise than recommend this
claim for confirmation to the full extent of land that may be found
comprised within the boundaries laid down in the concession. "
Page 51 U. S. 613
These proceedings were referred, in pursuance of the law, to the
Commissioner of the General Land Office, who gave his opinion that
the claim was not valid. A report was them made to Congress, but no
action was there had upon the subject.
Under the Act of Congress passed on 17 June, 1844, entitled "An
act to provide for the adjustment of land claims in the states of
Missouri, Arkansas, and Louisiana," the heirs of D'Auterive filed a
petition in the District Court of the United States for the
District of Louisiana, on 16 June, 1846. Attached to the petition
was a copy of the report of the Commissioners above mentioned. The
petition concluded as follows:
"The petitioners show that it appears from said statement that
the said Bernard D'Auterive occupied said land as a stock farm, for
which purpose it had been granted, up to the time of his death,
which occurred in 1776; that the said D'Auterive left a widow and
four small children; that in 1779 his widow married Jean Baptiste
Degruy; that the said Degruy and his wife continued to occupy said
land as a stock farm, and to cultivate a small part thereof until
1784, when they removed to the Mississippi; that thereafter the
said land, and even the stock kept thereon, were utterly neglected
by said Degruy; that in consequence thereof, and on account of
their ignorance of said claim, the Spanish authorities in Louisiana
granted a considerable, and the most valuable, part of said land to
other persons, and that the petitioners, considering the good faith
with which said titles were acquired, and to prevent the delays and
expenses of litigation, claimed the confirmation of so much only of
the aforesaid grant as was not held by titles emanating from the
Spanish government and confirmed by the United States, and had not
been sold or otherwise disposed of by the United States."
"And the petitioners show that they now again claim the
confirmation of said grant with the same restrictions; that as the
petitioners do not intent to interfere with the rights of any
persons holding portions of said grant under confirmed Spanish
titles or under purchases from the United States, it is unnecessary
to cite said persons, and that, besides them, there are no other
persons in possession of portions of said grant except certain
settlers who occupy small parts thereof with the written consent of
the petitioners."
"Wherefore the petitioners pray that the United States of
America, by their District Attorney for the District of Louisiana,
be cited; that the aforesaid grant be declared valid and confirmed
to the petitioners; that thereafter the Surveyor General
Page 51 U. S. 614
of the United States for the State of Louisiana be ordered to
survey said lands; that he be further ordered to certify, on the
plats and certificates of said survey, what parts of said grant are
held under confirmed Spanish titles, and what part, if any, of said
grant has been sold by the United States, together with the
quantity thereof. And the petitioners further pray that it may be
decreed that they, their heirs and legal representatives, shall
have the right to enter the quantity of land so certified to have
been sold or disposed of by the United States in any land office in
the State of Louisiana."
"[Signed] L. JANIN,
of Counsel"
On 10 November, 1846, Thomas J. Durant, the district attorney of
the United States, filed an answer denying all the allegations of
the petition.
In April, 1847, the depositions of sundry witnesses were taken
by the plaintiffs before N. R. Jennings, Commissioner, and in
December, 1847, the cause came on for trial before the district
court.
On 13 June, 1848, the district court gave the following
judgment:
"The court having taken this cause as above entitled under
consideration, and having maturely considered the same, doth now,
for reasons set forth at length and on file, order, adjudge, and
decree, that the petitioners recover the land claimed in their
petition and described in the original grant or concession to them,
as exhibited on pages 180 and 181 of the record of French grants,
the same having been delivered at the cession of Louisiana to the
government of the United States and deposited in the United States
land office in the City of New Orleans."
"And the court doth further order and decree that the Surveyor
General of the State of Louisiana do survey the land so decreed to
petitioners as aforesaid, and certify on the plats and certificates
of survey all such parts of the said grant as may have been sold or
otherwise disposed of by the United States."
"And the court doth further order and decree, that the
petitioners, or their heirs or legal representatives, shall have
the right to enter the quantity of land that may be so certified to
have been sold or otherwise disposed of by the United States, in
any land office of the State of Louisiana, according to the
provisions of the eleventh section of the Act of 26 May, 1824."
"Judgment rendered June 13, 1848. Judgment signed June 17,
1848."
"[Signed] THEO. H. McCALEB [SEAL],
U.S. Judge"
Page 51 U. S. 615
From this decree the United States appealed to this Court.
Page 51 U. S. 620
MR. JUSTICE DANIEL delivered the opinion of the Court.
The appellees, as heirs of Jean Antoine Bernard D'Auterive,
claimed in the court below an extensive tract of land in the County
of Attakapas, the quantity of which land is not given, though
certain boundaries thereof are set forth in the instrument upon
which these appellees prefer their claim. This instrument purports
to be a grant from Charles Philippe Aubry, Knight of the Royal and
Military Order of St. Louis, Commandant of the King in Louisiana,
and Dionysius Nicholas Foucault, filling the functions of director
in that province, to Messrs. D'Auterive and Masse, and bearing date
at New Orleans on 2 March, 1765.
The proceedings for the establishment of this claim in the court
below were instituted under the authority of an Act of Congress of
May 26, 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," which law was in
part reenacted on 17 June, 1844, and extended in its operation to
the State of Louisiana.
Vide 5 Stat. 676. The purposes and
the effect of the
Page 51 U. S. 621
law of 1824, with reference both to the claims and the
proceedings embraced within its provisions, have been heretofore
examined by this Court. They were especially considered at the last
term, in the case of
United States v.
Reynes, 9 How. 127, and the following conclusions
were then distinctly enunciated as implied necessarily in a just
interpretation of that statute.
Thus pp.
50 U. S.
146-147, in speaking of the statute of 1824, revived by
the act of 1844, this Court explicitly declare that
"With respect to that interpretation of these 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 these
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 which conferred them was a
qualification inseparably 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 varying in any degree the rights of parties
litigant; as designed to prevent delays in adjudicating upon
titles, as is farther 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 limitation, too,
maintained as to the character of claims, and that imposed upon the
courts in adjudicating upon them, is farther 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 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, and the laws and ordinances of the government from which
it is alleged to have been derived. "
Page 51 U. S. 622
By the meaning and directions of the statute of 1824 as thus
expounded the claim before us must be judged, and the next step in
our investigation leads us to consider it as controlled by the law
of nations, and the force of treaty stipulations construed in
conformity with that law.
The land which is the subject of this controversy was, according
to the terms of the instrument adduced by the appellees in the
court below as the foundation of their title, granted to their
ancestor on 2 March in the year 1765.
On the 3d day of November, 1762, by a treaty, or, as it is
termed in the language of the King, by "a special act" done at
Fontainebleau, Louis the Fifteenth ceded to the King of Spain the
entire province of Louisiana, including the Island and City of New
Orleans. The character and extent of this act of cession, as
evinced by the instructions from the French King dated at
Versailles, April 21, 1764, should be noted in this place, as they
are decisive of the relative positions of the parties to that act
and of the extent of their powers posterior thereto over the
territories or persons comprised within its provisions. Nothing
surely can be more comprehensive or absolute than the transfer
announced by the King of France or the declaration of his
relinquishment of all power or rights in the subject transferred.
The language of the French King to D'Abadie, Director General and
Commandant of Louisiana, is as follows:
"Having ceded to my very dear and best beloved cousin, the King
of Spain, and to his successors, in full property, purely and
simply and without exceptions, the whole country known by the name
of Louisiana,"
he proceeds to command his Director General that, on the receipt
of his instructions,
"whether they come to your hands by the officers of his Catholic
Majesty or directly by such French vessels as may be charged with
the same, you are to deliver up to the governor or officer
appointed for that purpose by the King of Spain the said country
and colony of Louisiana, and the posts thereon depending, likewise
the City and Island of New Orleans in such state and condition as
they shall be found to be in on the day of the said cession, being
willing in all time to come that they shall belong to his Catholic
Majesty, to be governed and administered by his governors and
officers, and be possessed by him in full property, and without
exceptions."
The cases of the
United States v. Reynes and of
Davis v. Police Jury of Concordia, decided at the last
term of this Court, devolved upon it the necessity for a particular
examination of the rules and principles applicable to the
construction of treaties, and in the adjudication of the cases
above mentioned, the following rules are either explicitly affirmed
or
Page 51 U. S. 623
necessarily implied: that compacts between governments or
nations, like those between individuals, should be interpreted
according to the natural, fair, and received acceptation of the
terms in which they are expressed. That the obligation of such
compacts, unless suspended by some condition or stipulation therein
contained, commences with their execution, by the authorized agents
of the contracting parties; and that their subsequent ratification
by the principals themselves has relation to the period of
signature. That any act or proceeding, therefore, between the
signing and the ratification of a treaty by either of the
contracting parties in contravention of the stipulations of the
compact would be a fraud upon the other party, and could have no
validity consistently with a recognition of the compact itself. As
a regular corollary from these principles, and as deducible from
the law of reason and the law of nations, it was ruled in the cases
just mentioned that a nation which has ceded away her sovereignty
and dominion over a territory could with respect to that territory
rightfully exert no power by which the dominion and sovereignty so
ceded would be impaired or diminished.
Vide 9 How.
50 U. S.
148-149, and
50 U. S.
289-291.
In the cases just cited, and particularly in that of the
United States v. Reynes, it became proper to examine the
rights of a ceding and retiring government as a government
de
facto over the territory ceded. This examination was induced
by the circumstance that the claimant against the United States
rested his pretensions in a great degree upon the position that
after the Treaty of St. Ildefonso, and anterior to an actual
delivery to the French authorities, the government of Spain, as a
government
de facto, retained the rights of sovereignty
and dominion over the Territory of Louisiana, and, as incident
thereto the power of granting away the public domain. But this
Court distinguished between the proceedings of an adversary
government, acting in the character and capacity of an independent
perfect sovereignty, unaffected by any stipulation, and acts done
in fraud or in violation of express concessions or compacts. It
said that the former, as the acts of a government
de
facto, might be respected and sanctioned by a succeeding
power; the latter could impose no obligation to respect them,
because they would have been performed in bad faith and in
violation of acknowledged rights existing in others. Admitting the
absolute verity of the document under which the appellees deduce
their title, and about which no serious question appears to have
been raised, can the validity of this title be sustained
consistently with the rules and principles propounded above and in
the cases to which reference has been made? The grant
Page 51 U. S. 624
from Aubry and Foucault, the Commandant and the Director of the
Province of Louisiana, to the ancestor of the appellees, bears date
on 2 March, 1765, between two and three years posterior in time to
the cession of the Province by France to Spain, and rather more
than ten months after the order from the French monarch for the
actual delivery of the territory to the Spanish authorities. Under
these circumstances, then, the act of the French officers must be
regarded as wholly unauthorized and inoperative to vest any title
in the ancestor of the appellees, those acts being inconsistent
with the existing relations between the Kingdoms of France and
Spain. It is true that Spain, during the continuance of her
sovereignty and possession in Louisiana, might have adopted and
confirmed this grant, but no such recognition thereof by Spain is
shown or pretended; so far from there being proof of such
recognition, it appears that a large portion of the lands comprised
within this grant was bestowed by the Spanish government upon other
grantees. Neither is there in the record proof or allegation that,
during the short reign of the French Republic under the treaty of
retrocession, the claim of D'Auterive was sanctioned or even
brought to the notice of that republic.
It follows, then, from the view of this case here taken that the
claim of the appellees cannot be sustained upon any general and
controlling principle of the law of nations, nor upon any
stipulation between the powers holding the Territory of Louisiana
prior to its transfer to the United States. The fate of this claim
must depend exclusively upon the authority and the acts of the
government of this country, and we will now consider how far it is
affected by those acts and that authority. It has been heretofore
repeatedly ruled by this Court that the control and recognition of
claims like that now before us were subjects belonging peculiarly
to the political power of the government, and that in the
adjudication of those claims, the courts of the United States
expound and enforce the ordinances of the political power. Guided
by these rules, and looking to the acts of the legislature, we find
it declared by the Act of Congress of March 26, 1804, § 14 2
Stat. 287,
"That 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 or government of Spain, and every act and
proceeding subsequent thereto of whatsoever nature, towards the
obtaining any grant, title, or claim to such lands, and under
whatsoever authority transacted or pretended, be, and the same are
hereby declared to be, and from the beginning to have been, null,
void, and of no effect in law or in
Page 51 U. S. 625
equity."
Within the comprehensive language of this provision the case
before us necessarily falls, as the inefficiency of the French
concession, after the treaty of Fontainebleau, to convey any title,
left the title in the government of Spain, where it remained up to,
and at the date of, the Treaty of St. Ildefonso. The reservation in
the proviso to the section just quoted, in favor of actual settlers
under the laws, customs, and usages of Spain, cannot include the
case under consideration, as this is not an instance of a title
asserted upon any such laws or usages, or founded on mere
settlement; but one professing to be founded upon the grant made by
the French commandant, independently of the authority of Spain, and
exceeding in extent the quantity of land awarded to settlers by the
proviso above mentioned. But it has been contended in the argument
filed on behalf of the appellees that if any defect could have been
alleged against their title by reason of the absence of power in
either the French or Spanish governments to make the grant, such
defect has been cured by the legislation of Congress, and in
support of this provision we have been referred to the Act of March
2, 1805 2 Stat. 324. The first and fourth sections of that act have
not been fully quoted in the argument of the appellees, and it may
be that an omission to examine them throughout has produced the
strange misapprehension of those provisions which seems to have
existed with those who rely upon their operation. Thus, from the
first section of the act of 1805 the following portion is
quoted:
"Any person or persons, or the legal representatives of any
person or persons, who, on 1 October in the year 1800, were
resident within the territories ceded by the French republic to the
United States by the Treaty of 30 April, 1803, and who had, prior
to the said 1 October, 1800, obtained from the French and Spanish
governments, respectively, during the time either of said
governments had the actual possession of said territories, any duly
registered warrant or order of survey,"
&c., but this quotation omits the following terms, which
essentially control every part of the section that precedes them;
viz.,
"for lands lying within the said territories to which the Indian
title had been extinguished, and which were on that day actually
inhabited and cultivated by such person or persons or for his or
their use."
The first requisite prescribed by this section of the law as
necessary to give validity to titles resting upon the actual
territorial occupation of the French or Spanish authorities is that
the grantees or their representatives should, on 1 October, 1800,
be residents within the territories ceded by the French republic to
the United States. The next condition imposed
Page 51 U. S. 626
by this statute is that the Indian title to such lands should
have been extinguished. And thirdly, that the lands thus granted
should have been, on 1 October, 1800, actually inhabited and
cultivated by the grantees or for their use. Without inquiring into
the fulfillment of the second of these conditions or into the
necessity for its fulfillment, it will be seen that the first and
the third, made essential by the statute, have been entirely
unperformed. Thus it is stated in the petition of the appellees
that as early as 1784, the family of D'Auterive removed from the
State of Louisiana. It is nowhere proved or even alleged that at
any subsequent period they returned to this land, much less that in
1800 or at any other posterior to 1784 they resided upon the same,
or by themselves or by their agents or through any instrumentality
of theirs cultivated this land. On the contrary, either of these
inferences is irresistibly excluded by the statement in the
petition that after the removal of the family of D'Auterive, much
of this land was, by the Spanish government, during its possession
of the country, granted to other persons. The alleged infancy of
the children of D'Auterive in the year 1784, even if there had been
a saving for the benefit of infants against the requisites of the
statute, could scarcely authorize a presumption in their favor
after a lapse of more than half a century,
viz., from 1784
to 1837, during which period this claim has been permitted to
sleep.
The fourth section of the act of Congress, also quoted in the
argument for the appellees, if applicable in any sense to their
pretensions, certainly adds nothing to their intrinsic force. This
section is a simple requisition that persons claiming lands within
the Territory of Louisiana, by virtue of any legal French or
Spanish grant made prior to 1 October, 1800, may, and persons
claiming lands in the said territories by virtue of any grant or
incomplete title bearing date subsequently to the 1st day of
October, 1800, shall, before 1 March, 1806, deliver to the register
of the land office or recorder of land titles within whose district
the land may be a notice in writing stating the nature and extent
of his claims, together with a plat of the tract or tracts so
claimed, and shall also, on or before that day, deliver to the
register or recorder, for the purpose of being recorded, every
grant, order or survey, deed of conveyance, or other written
evidence of his claim. This section then proceeds to declare, as a
penalty for noncompliance with its directions, that all the rights
of the claimant derived from the first two sections of the act
embracing all grants founded upon mere territorial occupation by
France, or Spain, shall become void and forever after be barred,
and that no incomplete
Page 51 U. S. 627
grant, warrant, order of survey, deed of conveyance, or other
written evidence which shall not be so recorded shall ever be
considered or admitted as evidence in any court of the United
States, against any grant derived from the United States. But for
the Act of Congress of 6 February, 1835, entitled "An act for the
final adjustment of claims to lands in the State of Louisiana," the
fourth section of the act of 1805 would have operated as a complete
bar to the claim of the appellees from 1 March, 1806. The act of
1835 removes that bar so far as to permit, within the space of two
years from its date, the prosecution of claims similar to that of
the appellees, but this act accomplishes nothing beyond this
permission. It imparts no merit or strength to any claim which such
claim did not previously possess. Upon a view of this case, then,
we think that the decision of the district court should be
Reversed, and the petition of the appellees dismissed, and
that decree is accordingly 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 petitioners is null
and void. Whereupon it is now here ordered, adjudged, and decreed
by this Court, that the decree 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 claimants in this
cause.
