- 74
Jefferson, Thomas, Third President
Description
Literature
Looney, ed. Papers of Thomas Jefferson. Retirement Series 3:316
Condition
In response to your inquiry, we are pleased to provide you with a general report of the condition of the property described above. Since we are not professional conservators or restorers, we urge you to consult with a restorer or conservator of your choice who will be better able to provide a detailed, professional report. Prospective buyers should inspect each lot to satisfy themselves as to condition and must understand that any statement made by Sotheby's is merely a subjective qualified opinion.
NOTWITHSTANDING THIS REPORT OR ANY DISCUSSIONS CONCERNING CONDITION OF A LOT, ALL LOTS ARE OFFERED AND SOLD "AS IS" IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS OF SALE PRINTED IN THE CATALOGUE.
Catalogue Note
Jefferson, the Louisiana Purchase, and the Batture Case. A highly important letter bearing on the legal question of personal liability of the President while in office as well as one on public versus private property. In May 1810, some fourteen months after Jefferson had retired from the presidency, he was sued for having ordered the eviction of Edward Livingston from a sandbar in the Mississippi River near New Orleans. Known as a batture, it had been used—as long as any of the oldest inhabitants of New Orleans could remember— to furnish earth for streets and courtyards and to provide a landing for boats in the dry season. When flooded, it served as a boat harbor.
During Jefferson's presidency, one Jean Gravier, brother of the man who had sold lots constituting the suburb Ste. Marie, and whose remaining property he had acquired, claimed title to the batture. "The lots actually lay between Gravier's own plantation and the river, but he claimed that an alluvion had already formed before they were sold and that, in the absence of other provisions, he had title to it" (Dumas Malone, Jefferson and His Time. The Sage of Monticello. 3:56).
After the United States acquired Louisiana, Gravier clashed with the local government and citizenry. An enclosure on the batture that he had begun in 1803 was ordered destroyed by the city council but in 1807 his lawyer, Edward Livingston, won a judgment in his favor from the superior court of the territory. Livingston subsequently took title of the batture from Gravier and began to construct a canal and a levee, but his workers were driven off by local residents. Governor Claiborne reported to Jefferson not only was the opposition to Livingston fierce, but that he "feared the current of the Mississippi will in some measure change its course, which will prove injurious to navigation, but may occasion degradation in the levees of the city, or those in its vicinity" (quoted in Malone, 3:57). Jefferson would incorporate Claiborne's letter of 3 September 1807 into his brief.
"The plan of defence suggested to my counsel for their consideration is to plead 1. the General issue, which authorizes us to go into the whole merits of the case for the justification of the administration & assertion of the interests of the public in general & the city of N[ew] O[rleans] in particular. 2. a special plea that what I did was as Presidt of the US without malice to the locality of the action for a motion in arrest of judgment. 3. to reserve objections to the locality of the action for a motion in arrest of judgment." Jefferson turned to his Attorney General Caesar A. Rodney who was of the opinion that the batture belonged to the United States, and that under an act of Congress, adopted earlier that year, the government was explicity authorized to evict trespassers from its lands. Accordingly the Secretary of State ordered the marshal of Orleans Territory to eject any persons who had settled or taken possession of the batture fronting the suburb Ste. Marie (Malone, 3:58). In retaliation, Livingston sued Jefferson $100,000 for having disregarded local judicial authority. The territorial court had ruled that the batture belonged to Jean Gravier, who had conveyed title to Livingston.
"While oppressed with the whole mass of the case of the Batture I passed over some topics too slightly,& some altogether, which have since occurred to myself, or been suggested by others I have therefore made these the subject of some amendments to my former memoir on that case; and desiring that my former colleagues in office may be apprized of the whole of what I deem our justification on that measure, I inclose you these amendments separately stated: and will pray you, after communicating them to the President & Secretaries of state & the Treasury to return them to me" writes Jefferson to Attorney General Caesar Rodney, who had been retained when President Madison took office. On learning of the suit, Jefferson explored the controversy by researching the legal aspects of the case in substantial depth and presented his findings to his attorneys in a detailed brief. He was concerned whether as president, he had acted properly and whether as a private citizen he could be sued nunc pro tunc—that is, for actions performed when he was a public official. He also corresponded with President Madison and various department heads solliciting their comments and from whom he received a quantity of supporting documents. However these issues were tabled when the suit was dismissed for lack of jurisdication. According to Chief Justice Marshall, who presided over the celebrated case of Livingston vs. Jefferson, the sole issue from the very beginning was whether the court could take cognizance of a trespass committed on lands outside the district of Virginia when the alleged trespasser resided in that district (Malone, 3: 670).