The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1845-06-07
From the N. o. Bulletin
THE MASON ROUGE GRANT.

Your paper of Monday morning contains, with
out comment the judgment entered on Saturday
last by the United States circuit court in this city,
in the case of the United States vs. King and Coke,
involving a portion of the Maison Rouge Grant.
This isolated publication might induce your readers
to believe that the case and the title to the land
claimed in it are finally settled; but nothing is
farther from the truth. The case had been remand
ed by the Supreme Court to the circuit court for
further proceedings, in conformity with the opinion
expressed by the Supreme Court. And the ques-
ton before the circuit court Saturday last, was
whether the case should be tried over again, or
whether final judgment should be entered in favor
of the United States. The circuit court held that
inasmuch as the Supreme Court had declared that a
certain important document, without which the
grant could have no validity, was antedated and
fraudulent, other proceedings could be had con-
sistently with that opinion, but final judgment
against the defendants; which was accordingly or
dered But Judge Mckinley added, at the same
time, that the counsel for the defendants doubted
the construction which the circuit court had put
upon the mandate THE Supreme Court, and that
the circuit court was disposed to offer the defend
ants an opportunity of submitting the question
to the Supreme Court. The counsel for the de-
PENDANTS thereupon applied for writ Of error, which
was Immediately granted and signed by Judge Me-
Kiney. Thus the final result is yet in suspense
The document alluded to is plan purporting to
have been made by Laveau Trudeau, on the 14th Of
June, 1897 This is impeached by witnesses,
whose testimony taken er parte in Ouachita, in
1890 and who are now dead. Giving credit to these
witnesses, the Supreme Court concluded that this
plan had been made only in 1902, and that Carlos
Laveau Trudcau had fraudulenty antedated it at
the instance ofLous Bouligny. This was the only
matter decided by the Supreme Court and the case
truly turned on it. And when the Supreme Court
decided the point in opposition to the court below,
it happened that much of the evidence which had
been heard by that circuit court not before it,
being the uniform practice of the federal courts in
Louisiana not to take down in writing, and conse-
quenty not to send to the Supreme Court in the
event Of writ of error the oral testimony which is
received ut the trial of cases at law. Those who
in the least acquainted with the position of this
matter, know that the same question will be repro
duced before the Supreme Court at least twice
The friends of our respected feow-ctizens, Louis
Bouigny, and those who know that Louisiana never
had purer, more competent and more disinterestcd
public officer than Carlos Laveau Trudeau, may yet
be permitted to hope, that when the Supreme Court
Of the United States shall be in possession Of fuller
evidence, that Enlightened court will come to differ
ent conclusion.
These remarks have been elected not only by
your publication of the late judgment of the circuit
court and other similar articles in the public prints
but also and principally by the extraordinary an
nouncement made by Mr. Attorney General Preston,
in the circuit court, that the State of Louisiana had
located its floating land claims, even without waiting
for the decision of the circuit court upon the lands
of the defendants. Ii is perfectly evident that the
United States hove no title to this land, until judy
ment beyond appeal shall have given it to them,
and that they transfer to the State of Lou
isiana. The course attempted by the State is illegal
cruel and oppressive, and would involve both the
defendants and purchasers from the State in serious
difficulties.
Respectfully, your obedent servant,
I l.. L