Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1830-05-04

lst That, by the ordinance 1854, subdeleg rate was
prohibited from making grant, in consideration of scr
vices rendered or to be rendered.
3D. That sub-delegte in Louisiana, was not a sub.
delegate as contemplated by the above ordnance
81. That O'Reily's regulations, made ia February
l770 be considered demonsrative of the ext.n,
Of the granting power Of either the Governor Gene.
rail- or the subdeiegates, under the royal order Of Au-
gust ITO.
4th. That the royal order of August, I770 las re.
cited or referred to in the preamble the
OF Morales, Of july 1902 related exclusively 10 the
Governor neral.
5,h That the word mercedes In the or,n,brs
OF 1854, which, in the Spanish language, means "g,
can be narrowed by any thing in that ordnance or in
any other law, to the idea of grant to an Indian or
reward to an nformer and much less, mere sale for
money.
seth. Tha, 0Rely's regulations were in their term.
sd in, Upper Louisiana.
eth. That the regulations of O'Reily, have any
bearing ON the grant TO Antoine Souard, or that such
grant was contemplated by them.
S!h That he Limitation to square league of grants
to new settlers in Opeousa., Auackspas and Nacho.
ches, Tin sth article Of OReilys regula,ous prohibits
larger grant in Upper Louisiana.
9Th. That the regulations OF the Governor General,
Gayo'o, dated 9th September 1897, entitled Insruc.
tons TO be ob'erved, for the admission of seers
prohibit in future, grant for services, have the e
tect OF annulling that TO Antoine Souard, which was
made in l796, and not located surveyed until F. ru.
airy, 1901.
sl0ih That the complete titles made bv Gavoso. are
not to be referred TO aordng the construction made
by Gayoso himself, Of his own regulations.
ll'h. That, although the regulations Of Morales,
were not promulgated as law in Upper Louisiana, the
grantee in the principal case, bound by te mas.
much as he had notice or must be presumed, irom the
official station which he held, TO have had notice of
th'ir terms.
!" 18th That the regulations Of Morales, " exclude
all belief, that any law existed, under which confr-
nation oil the tile in question, could have been claim
ed"
18th. That the incomplete titles (produced 10 the
Court) made by the Governor General the Intend
ant General though based on inconplete titles not con-
tOrmablc afinna If Rail- NJ
raes afford no inference in favor Of the power Of the
Lieut. Governor, from whom these incomplete title.
emanated, and must be considered as anomalous
cises OF power, in favor of individual grantees.
18th. That the language of Morales himself in the
incomplete titles issued by him. concessions made by
the Lieutenant Governor of Upper Louisiana anterior
to the date of his regulations not TO be referred
70 as furnishing the Construction which hs Morales pu,
on his own regulations.
10th. That the uniform practice of the sub.dele.
gates or Lieutenant Governor OF Upper Louisiana from
the hrst establishment of that province to the 10th
March 1904 is to be dsregarded proof Of law, usage
or custom the 'en.
''l6th. That the historical fact that aineteen-t,oen
heths OF the titles to lands in Upper louisiana were
not only incomplete but not coniormabe TO the regula-
tons oil Kelly GayOso, Morales the date of the
cession TO the United States, affords no inference IN IA
vor OF the general legality of those titles.
18TH. That the fact, that incomplete concessions,
whether floating or located were, previous TO the ccs-
sion treated and considered by the government and po-
puaton OF Louisiana property saeable transferable
and the subject of inheritance and distribution alb ntes
|
ther clam to the protection OF the treaty of cesson
the law of nations.
lsth That the laws Of Congress heretofore passed in
favor oil complete titles, furnish argument or protec-
ing principle in favor of those titles of precisely
similar character, which remained unconiirmed.
I'm addition to the above, number of other
consequential to those indicated, might be stated The
Judges doctrine as to the forfeiture which he con-
tends is inflicted by Morales regulations seems to me
TO be peculiarly pregnant with grievous consequences
SHALL however, not tire the reader with any further c.
Enumeration, and shall detan him only to observe by
way OF conclusion, that the Judges recollection of the
argument OF the counsel for the petitioner delivered
at the bar, differs materially from what can remem-
Der, who also heard it. In justice to the counsel
beg to observe, that all that have now submitted TO
the public has been suggested by that argument as
before me- INC printed report oil a G GfIf2 even
And the said James III. Peck Judge as aforesaid. m
mindful of the solemn duties of his station and that he
held the same blythe Constitution of the United States
during good behavior only, with intention wrongfullv
and unusty TO Cypress, imprson, and otherwise inure
the said Luke Edward Lawless under color of law did
thereafter, at term of the said District Court of the
United States for the District of Missouri begun and
held at the city OF ST. Louis, in the State of Missouri
on the third Monday i'm April, one thousand eight hun
dred and twentysi ARBITRARILY oppressivey, and I'M
Justly and under the further color and pretence that the
said Luke Edward Lawless answerable 10 the said
Court for the said publication, signed GA Citizen" as
Tor contempt thereof institute, in the said Court be-
fore him the said James II. Peck, Judge as aforesaid
certain proceedings against the said Luke Edward Law
less in summary way by attachment issued for tha
purpose by the order of the said James H. Peck as sucb
judge against the OF the said Luke Edward Law
less touching the said pretended contempt under and
by virtue OF which said attachment the said Luke Ed
ward Lawless was, the twenty day of April one
thousand eight hundred and twenty-six arrested inn
soned, and brought into the said Court before the
said Judge, in the custody of the Marshal of the said
State; and the said James H. Peck Judge as aforesaid
did, afterwards on the day, under the color and
preences aforesaid and with the intent aforesaid i'm the
said Court then and there unusy, oppressively and
arbitrarily, order and adudge that the said Luke Ed
ward Lawless, for the aforesaid should DO com.
med to prison for the period of twenty four hours and
that he should be supended from practising as an ator-
ney or counsellor at law in the said District Court for
the period OF eighteen calendar months from that day
and did then and there further cause the said unjust and
oppressive sentence TO be carried into executions and the
said Luke Edward Lawess was under color of the said
sentence, and by the order of the said James r. Peck
Judge aforesaid, thereupon suspended from practis
ing such attorney counsellor the said Court for
the period aforesaid, and Immediately committed to the
common prison in the said city of ST. Louis to the great
bsParagement OF public justice, the abuse of judicial
authority and to the subversion of the liberties OF the
People of the u. States.
And the House of Representatives, by protestation
saving to themselves the liberty Of exhibiting at any
time hereafter any farther articles or other
or impeachment against the said James James RI Peck
and also OF replying TO his which he shall make
unto the article herein preferred against him. and of Of
efng proof 10 the same, and every part thereof and to
all and every other articles accusation or inpeacbmen
which shall be exhibited by them as the case shall re-
qure, do demand that the said James H. Peck NAV bc
quito answer the msdemeanors herein charged against
him. and that such proceedings examinations trials and
judgments, may be thercupon had given as NAV be
agreeable to law and Justice.