Phenix gazette. [volume] (Alexandria [D.C.]) 1825-1833, 1830-05-06

tne opinion vi tnc sdiu Saiucs IL. eek, as lido
of the said court in the matter or cause afore;,S
and purporting to set forth the reasons oth
said James II. Peck, as such Judge, for the y;
decree; and that Luke Edward Lawless, ~
zen of the United States, and an attorney an
counsellor at law. in the said District Court ~,
who had been of counsel for the petitioners !;
the said court in the matter aforesaid, did, tha,s
after, and OH or about the eighth day of Anry
one thousand eight hundred and tweDtv.s,
cause to be published in certain other nevsn,
per. printed at the city of st. Louis called IN
Missouri Advocate and st. Louis Erouirer .
certain article signed ''a Citizen" and mn
porting to contain all exposition of certain error,
of doctrine and faci alleged to be contained j.
the opinion of the said James Fl Peck, as bao. -
that time so published, which publication By tfs
said Luke Edward Lawless. was to the effect "a
lowing, viz:
"To THE EDToR:
Sir:-I have read, with the attention vb,r
the subject deserves, the opinion of Judge Peel
on the claim of the widow and heirs Of AD,Sr,,
Soulard, published in the Republican Of he NH
ultimo. / observe that although the Jaies has
thought properto decide against the claimyAes,yss
the grounds of his decree open for further discus.
sion. .
Availing myself, therefore, of this permission
and considering the opinion 50 published, to be-,
fair subject of examination to every citizen vbo
feels himself interested in, or agglieyed by,r.
operation, beg leave to point the attention Of
the public to some of the principal errors which
think have discovered in it. in doing 50 I
shall! confne myself to little more than an enum.
Grafton of those errors. without entering into apy
demonstration or developed reasoning on the sub
iect. This would require more space than
newspaper allows, and besides, is not. as regard;
most of of the poinsts, absolutely Necessary.
Judge Peck, in this opinion, seem, 10 me to
have erred in the following assumptions, as vel
of fact as of doctrine.
1st. That by the ordinance Of l-jl. sui
delegate was prohibited from making grant IL
consideration of services rendered or to be rsu.
dered.
Cd. That sub-delegate in Louisiana was rr
a sub-delegate as contemplated BY the above d.
dinance.
Sd. That O'Reilly's regulations, made in Fe.
bruary, 1870, can be considered as demOnstrlt:
i've Of the extent of the granting power Of either
the Governor General or the sub-delegates under
the royal order of August, 1890.
4th That the royal order of August, E'Or
las recited or referred to in the preamble 10 the
regulations of Morales. of July, 1899 related
exclusively to the Governor General.
5th. That the word mercedes" in the Ordt
nance of 1854. which III the Spanish Language
means "gifts," can be narrowee/ by any thin:
in that ordinance or in any otherlaw, to the ldei
of grant to an Indian, or reward to an inform
err, and much less. to a mere sale for money.
9th. That O'Reily's regulations were In then
terms applicable, Or ever were in fact applied TO-
or published in, Upper Louisiana:
9TH. That the regulations of ORely have an!
bearinson the grant to Antoine SOulard, or 'fl'
such grant was contemplated by them.
9Th. That the limitation to a square league d
grants to new settlers in Opelousas. Attakapa,
and Natchitochcs, lin 9Th article Of ORely;
prohibits larger grant IN CPPs
Louisiana.
9th. That the regulations of the Governor Ut'
neral, Gayoso, dated 9th September, 1870 enn'
tied" Instructions to be observed for tie adHi'
sion of new settlers, "prohibit III future grani&
services, or have the effect of annulling that
Antoine Soulard, which was made in 1896, and
not located or surveyed until February, 1901.
10th. That the complete titles made By U'!
$50 are not to be referred to as afordlns the COZ
struction made by Gayoso himself of his DIVINE
gulations. sv.
18th. That, although the regulations OF W.
rales were not promulgated as law in upper LOU
siana, the grantee in the principal case was oOlIa
by them, inasmuch as he had notice, or mus
presumed, "from the official station when
held" to have had notice of their terms;
l2th. That the regulations OF Morales ,.t
clude all belief, that any law existed under "u,a
a confirmation of the title IN question could '"'
been claimed" -.
18th. That the complete titles. produce
the Court made by the Governor General % ~
Intendant General, though based on IH'0'nF ~
titles, not conformable to the regulations u
Reilly, Gayoso, or Morales, afford no nIr, .so,
in favor of the power of the Lieut. U% ,J ,,i
from whom these incomplete titles emanal'I VS., o
must be considered as anomalous exercl'e'"F'
er in favor of individual grantees: ,..r
18th. That the language of Moraie' ' 'n.[,.
in the complete titles issued by him. on ' T~y
sions made by the Lieutenant Govern" " ,, moi
Louisiana. anterior to the date OF hI' IAN.
ought not to be referred to as furnI''Ill- u.s. er p
struction which he, Morales, put on hl' ''' y
gaations. f.se sb
AZ cttS