To James Madison from William C. C. Claiborne, 22 May 1806 (Abstract)
From William C. C. Claiborne, 22 May 1806 (Abstract)
§ From William C. C. Claiborne. 22 May 1806, New Orleans. “I inclose for your perusal a copy of another Act of the legislature which I shall reject.1 This measure was probably suggested by some of the French lawyers, and has become a favorite measure with the majority in the two houses, its rejection therefore will perhaps excite some discontent; but the course my judgment suggests, must be pursued.2 The proceedings of the present Legislature are, I fear, in a great degree influenced by a few Intriguers, who deserve not their confidence; These men have, and will occasion much trouble in this Territory. Mr. Daniel Clark and Mr. Evan Jones are actively employed in political concerns. The first (from disappointment) is greatly soured with the General Administration; and the latter, (from principle) is inimical to the American Government; they both cordially unite in doing the Governor here, all the injury in their power. Mr. Clark’s opposition to me may be attributed to an unwillingness on my part, immediately on my arrival, to be controuled by his opinions, and my aversion to his views, as well private as public. Mr. Jones’s dislike to me has arisen from the seizure of the Brig Active,3 of the particulars of which you have long since been made acquainted with.”
RC and enclosure (DNA: RG 59, TP, Orleans, vol. 8); letterbook copy and partial letterbook copy (Ms–Ar: Claiborne Executive Journal, vol. 16). RC 1 p.; in a clerk’s hand, signed by Claiborne; docketed by Wagner. Partial letterbook copy marked beneath dateline, in Claiborne’s hand: “Not to be inserted in the office Journal.” For enclosure, see n. 1.
1. The enclosure (3 pp.; docketed by Wagner) is a copy of the “Act declaring the laws which continue to be in force in the Territory of Orleans, and authors which may be recurred to as authorities within the same,” which states that because of the various changes that the territorial government had undergone, the judiciary system was “in Some measure, wrapped in obscurity,” therefore the legislature decreed that except for the changes necessitated by various federal laws and the U.S. Constitution, citing in particular the writ of habeas corpus and trial by jury, the laws and authorities to be consulted were the Roman civil law, as seen in the digest of Justinian, “the commentators of the civil law,” particularly Donat’s treatise of civil law, and Spanish law, “consisting of the books of the recopilation de Castilla and actos acordados,” the partidas of Alfonso the Wise, the royal statutes of Castile, the recopilation de indias, excepting what is “relative to the enfranchisement of Slaves,” the laws de Soro, and lastly “the ordinances and royal orders and decrees, which have been formally applied to the colony of Louisiana … aided by the authority of the respectable commentators admitted in the courts of Justice”; the act adds that “in matters of commerce the ordinance of Bilbao” was to have “full authority in this Territory” in all commercial matters, and goes on to list several other authorities that were to be consulted.
2. Here the partial letterbook copy reads: “Its rejection therefore will be made the ground of new complaints against me. It is even said that it will determine the Legislature to solicit my recall. But be this as it may I shall continue to act the part which my judgment approves.”