OCR Text |
Show .. - -28- invested the United States with proprietorial title to all "vacant lands" and significantly provided that the territory should be created into a State or States of the Union. This was not a limitation upon the grant, but probably was sug- gested by the American negotiators who seriously doubted the constitutional power of the federal government to take over new territory-a doubt later resolved by the United States Supreme Court in favor of the power but coupled with a declara- tion that all territories acquired by the United States are held in trust for the creation of new States and not in permanent right by the federal government."M- If the former conclusion was admissible the latter was inescapable; for the con- stitutional grant of limited federal sovereignty over States of equality within the Union could not possibly extend to an unattached domain in full and permanent sovereignty beyond the confines of the States and all their territories. A few years later, when a small portion of the original Louisiana territory, including the outlet of the Mississippi River, was created into the State of Louisiana and admitted into the Union, the federal Congress was careful to re- quire a compact for the perpetually free navigation of the river;°5 and a like 11 ''" ' " .......... '......'¦¦............¦' ......................... '........... f ' ' ¦ Spanish laws substituted by his decree remained in effect until the cession of Louisiana to the United States. This fact is discussed in New Orleans v United States, 10 Pet. (U.S.) 662, 724 9 L. Ed. 573, 597 (1836), where the Court said: "From the abrogation of the French laws in Louisiana by 0TReilly in 1769, until the comxfcry came into the possession of the United States, the laws of Spain acted upon and governed the rights in controversy. The retrocession of the country from Spain to Prance, and the cession of France to the United States, followed so soon afterwards, that these transfers, it is admitted, caused no interruption to the laws of Spain." It should be observed, however, that the international law to which the territory of Louisiana stood committed at the time of its cession to the United States was that to which assent had been given by the Republic of France, the ceding sovereign, whose attitude on international water, rights had been so forcefully stated in the decree of its "Conseil Ex- ecutif" issued November 16, 1792. See supra, footnote $7> p. 86. Pollard's Lessee v. Hagan, 3 How. (U.S.) 212, 11 L. Ed. 565 (18^5). 65 Act of Feb. 20, 1811, s3, 2 Stat. at L. 6I4I, 3 Thorpe*s Constitutions, 1377; "And Provided also, That the said convention shall provide by an ordinance, irrevocable without the consent of-the United States, that .' . . the river Mississippi and the navigable rivers leading into the same or into the Gulf of Mexico shall be cornnon highways and forever free, as well to the inhabitants of the said state as to other citizens of the United States, without any tax, duty, impost, or to?l therefor imposed by the said state." This was repeated in the Act of Congress for the admio.sixi or Louisiana, Act of Apr. 8,, 1812, Si, 2 Stat. at Lo 701r 3 Thorpe-s Const! but ions , 1379?, "Provided, That it shall be taken as a condition uoo.i which the said s-ba^e is Incorporated in the Union, that the river MIssirsippi, and the na-yige.ble rivers and waters leading into the same, and into the Gulf of Mexico, shall be common highways and forever free, as well to' the inhabitants of other states and all territories of the United States, with- out any tax., duty, impost, or toll thsrefor, imposed by the said state; and that the e.bo-^e condition • * c shall be considered, deemed, and taken fundamental conditions ard. t^rms, upon which the'said state is incorporated in the Union." Nothing on this subject appears in the Louisiana Constitutions of 1812» 5 Thorpe*s Constitutions. I38O et seq., I852. 5 Thorpe*s Constitutions, lij.ll et |