Case Name: TERRITORY vs. DUROSSAT & AL.
Court: Superior Court of the Territory of Orleans
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1812
Citations: 2 Mart. (o.s.) 120
Docket Number: 
Parties: TERRITORY vs. DUROSSAT & AL.
Judges: 
Reporter: Martin (Louisiana Term Reports)
Volume: 2
Pages: 120–124

Head Matter:
TERRITORY vs. DUROSSAT & AL.
Spring 1812.
IV. District.
The jurisdiction ofthe Court, extends to the &zbine.
INDICT ME NT for robbery, on one Mar~ann Lopezp a Spaniard, of twenty mules, and merchandize to the value of six thousand dollars.
TB F. robbery appeared to have been committed, on the pucliv road leading from Natchi-toches to Nacogdoches, and west of the Rio Hon-do.
IT was contended, for the defendants, that the plac~ where the act was cornthitted, was not within the limits of the territory, and consequently, out of the jurisdiction of the court. That the Rio Hondo, under the former governments, had been considered the boundary, and no jurisdiction was exercised by the present, beyond that river. The offence is alledgeci ~to have been committed in the parish of Natchitoclies: it is necessary to shew this fact, by proving it to have been committed within the limits of that parish, or, if there be no limits estabUshed by law, by shewing that jurisdiction had actually been extended. Some occurrences were referred to, and spoken of, as matters of public notoriety, and as historical facts; it was said, that a treaty which had met the approbation of our government, had been formed between the Spanish governor Herrera, and general Wilkinson, by which it was stipulated that the tract of country between the Rio Hondo and the Sabine, should be considered neutral ground; and that, in consequence, Wilkinson had proceeded, in conjunction with the Spaniards, to rempve the settlers. The grand jury are sworn to enquire for the body of the district, but if the scene of the robbery was not within the parish of Natchitoches, which formms an integral part of the district, although it might be within the boiind~f the tern-tory, yet not being included in the district for which the grand jury is selected, they have no right to find a bill, and a court has no right to act on a bill so found. Davezac, Wallace, and Low for the defendants.
Brackenridge for the territory.
The question of boundary, or limits of a territory, is a political, not a 1~gal question. 1 JU2irtin 151. The government IS the proper power to declare the limits of the coun~ try over which it presides, or to settle them with foreign nations by treaty. When this has once been done, no subordinate power or department is competent to the examination of the justice o~ propriety of such act, but all must implicitly acquiesce. By an act of Congress, erecting this territory into, a state government, the boundary is fixed at the Sabinc; this i~vnot, however, extend~-ing the limits of Louisiaii~a~ but a dec'aration that Louisiana, under the territorial government, does extend, at least as fas as that river. This was made previously to the commission of the offen-ces charged against the defendants; and if the question, as to the bounda~es of the territory, was otherwise doubtful, it would be wanting in respect to the supre~ne power of the land, to disregard this solemn declaration. But it appears that in various instances, jurisdiction was actually exercised, beyond the Rio Hondo, by the civil magistrate; so that, even if this were to be considered the criterion, no doubt can arise. It must, however, be observed that there has not been produced any official authentic documents, or in fact evidence of any kind, to prove that the Rio Hondo had been fixed upon as the line between former governments, or between the united States and Spain; nor, indeed, is it alledged to have been en tered into by persons duly authorised, or to be any thing?more than the private understanding of subordinate officers of either nation.
It is not material, that the place, where the act is alledged to have been committed, should be a part of the parish of Natchitoches-it is sufficient if it be within the territory of Orleans. This Court is appointed to preside over the territory, by the government of the United States, and no subdivisions into districts, by the territorial legislature, can possibly have the effect of abridging the power, or jurisdcition, given to its by Congress.

Opinion:
The Court,
Mathew, Judge.
The Court has jurisdiction-because the sovereign power has exercised the right of legislation over the tract of country, on which the offence was corn-mitted.
THE executive of the United States has extended its authority, by ordering its army to occupy the ground, and not to permit the Spaniards to advance on it.
The jurisdiction of the Superior Court is coextensive with the territory-the offenders, therefore, could be tried here or in any other district, where a jury could be procured according to the laws of the territory. This being the nearest, is, therefore, the most proper district.
THE sovereign having legislated for it-the executive having acted on it-the judic~ial authority must be exercised, in order that government, may be completely carried on. The other powers of government having acted, it does not be-hove the third to enquire into the 1egality of their act.
Ex. rel. Brackenrige.