THE AMERICAN LAW JOURNAL. TO READERS AND CORRESPONDENTS. HAVING in the preceding volumes of this journal, laid before our readers, the most interesting among the various publications which have appeared on the celebrated controversy respecting the Batture at New Orleans, we now complete the collection by presenting them with the pamphlet published in 1812 by Mr. Jefferson in justification of his conduct in that case, and Mr. Livingston's answer to it, now printed for the first time from the author's manuscript,* communicated by himself for the Law Journal. We are also enabled by Mr. Jefferson's politeness to offer an improved edition of his valuable tract, by means of the corrections and additional notest which he has transmitted to us with his permission to republish it in this repository of juridical learning. We hope our readers will be pleased with the republication in its present improved state, of this Exposition of the motives which determined the conduct of the late president in this case. Indeed, we could not, in justice, omit laying it before the public at the same time with the answer of his adversary. Justice requires that both parties should be fairly and fully heard, that the candid inquirer may have it in his power at any time to confront them with each other, and thus judge of the correctness of their assertions and the fairness of their arguments. * A small number of copies has been struck off separately, to gratify those who are not subscribers to this Journal, and for distribution among Mr. Livingston's friends. † The additional notes are marked MS. Note. Of Mr. Livingston's answer, we must acknowledge, that to us it appears to be one of the most able and masterly performances that ever came from the pen of a lawyer or scholar in any country. When all the angry passions which this controversy has excited shall have subsided, we may venture to predict that this "answer" will be cited as a model of juridical eloquence and argument. It is long, but the reasoning is so luminous, so close, so methodical; the style is so elegant, the corruscations of wit so splendid, and the vein of irony so delicate, yet severe, that the attention of the reader is irresistibly fastened to the page. As both tracts are now presented together, illustrated by suitable charts, with full indexes, references, and all the editorial helps that we have had it in our power to bestow, our subscribers will have an opportunity of comparing the arguments of these two great champions, who, on this occasion, appear to have staked no inconsiderable degree of legal, political and even moral reputation. For ourselves, we are, if possible, strengthened in the opinion which we have long since formed and published in favour of Mr. Livingston's claim. His answer is emphatically, a réplique sans réponse. It puts an end to the Batture controversy, and we are fully convinced that the decision of an enlightened public will confirm the decree of the federal court at New Orleans, by which Mr. Livingston's ejection from the Batture has been declared illegal, and he restored to the possession, and, we hope, to the quiet enjoyment of his long contested property. We have paid particular attention to the correctness of the printing of these valuable tracts, and on revision have found but very few errata, which we have duly noticed and pointed out to the reader. We have thought it our duty to preserve Mr. Jefferson's peculiar orthography, having observed that he uniformly writes the word knowledge and its compounds, without the w. Although we do not approve of the innovation, we have not thought ourselves authorised to vary from the spelling adopted by this eminent author. We have at the same time corrected every error in the first edition which appeared to us to be owing to the fault of the copyist or the printer. As most, if not all the publications respecting the Batture, which we have inserted in our former volumes, are referred to For the Errata, see page 91 and 112. in many places in these two pamphlets, we subjoin a table of reference, that the reader may more easily turn to them if he think proper. We regret that we have not, whenever these references occurred, pointed to the volume and page of this journal where the several quotations were to be found. We thought of it when it was too late. We have, however, double paged Mr. Jefferson's pamphlet, the references to it in Mr. Livingston's publication, being always to the pages of the original edition. 1. Case stated by the Corporation of New Orleans, with Mr. Derbigny's opinion thereon. 2 Am. Law Journ. 282. 2. Examination of the title of the United States to the Batture. By Edward Livingston, Esq. ibid. 307. 3. Mr. Duponceau's opinion on the case of the Batture in opposition to Mr. Derbigny's. ibid. 392. 4. Case stated by Mr. Livingston with the opinions of Messrs. Ingersoll, Rawle, Tilghman and Lewis thereon. ibid. 434. 5. Review of the case of the New Orleans Batture, &c. by Peter S. Duponceau, Esq. 4 Am. Law Journ. 517. |