Article by Rodolfo Batiza
In his reply, Mr. Snyder makes the observation that we do not disagree about the Louisiana law and its sources as extensively or as deeply as the tone of my article might suggest. The tone of my article, perhaps too emphatic, should be interpreted as a natural reaction to his method in tracing sources, which I consider seriously flawed.
Mr. Snyder's thesis is that the Louisiana law of possession in the Code of 1808 comes directly from the Roman law on that subject. My position is that, except for a few provisions borrowed from the French Ferrière translation of Justinian's Institutes, most articles in the Louisiana Code on possession, came from the works of Domat and Pothier and from provisions found in the French Civil Code and in the Projet of the year VIII (1800). Further, Mr. Snyder argues that my insistence on one method of examination has obscured some of the sources of the Code, whereas his approach can offer responses to questions that my research has not been able to answer.
In order to decide which of the two positions is correct, and which of the two methods of identifying sources is more accurate and effective, it will be necessary to examine each separately. The method I used in tracing the sources of the 1808 Code would be more easily understood recalling the situation which existed in Louisiana before publication of my initial research in September of 1971.
About the Author
Rodolfo Batiza. Professor Emeritus of Latin American Legal Studies, Tulane University School of Law. Bachiller en Ciencias Sociales, 1935; Licenciado en Derecho, 1941, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.
Citation
69 Tul. L. Rev. 1639 (1995)