The daily crescent. [volume] ([New Orleans, La.]) 1848-1851, 1848-03-24

making the dOadt0n-Rehndrhs o" '1e Tece"t 0ectSto"
After the retirement of Mr.. Jefferson from office,
| and the termination of the - war OF books be-
tween him and Mr.. Livingston, the latter supposed
the title of himself and Delabigarre finally settled
Rut he was mistaken. 1t appears that Jean Ora
vier was not the only brother of Bertrand. Three
others having the same relationship with himself,
resided in France. They heard of the value of
the Banure, and put in their claims, as heirs of
Bertrand Grayier, to three fourths OF this mine OF
wealth. The title of Jean Gravier, as derived
from the adjudication made to him in 1877, was
set aside, and in February, 1919, the Supreme
Court rendered final decree, giving to the ven
dees of Jean Gravier one.fourth, and to the three
other heirs of Bertrand Gravier, three-fourths OF
the property in question. The right of these heirs,
thus ascertained, were purchased by Livingston
on the Sd of May, 1919.
The title to the property being now, as all the
world supposed, finally vested in Livingston and
Delabigarre, they went on to improve what they
had at Some cost acquired, and with no small
trouble and vexation defended. They filled up the
space in front of Tchoupitouas street, and bum
\ a new Ievee, in front of what is now called New
Levee street-thus retaining what now constl-
utes fourteen squares of the most valuable prop
|
with others interested made g donation" to the
CITY of the new levee which they had built, of the
alluv;on between the levee and the river, of the
soil necessary to proong the streets running to-
wards the river to the line of the levee, and of
sufficient land to make Tchoupitoulas street sixty
feet wide and in the act they undertook to build
market-house, &c, but they at the same time de-
ciared that "a
- The donation is made with the express Condition.
CONDITION WITHOUT WHICH 1T SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN
MADE-to wit that all the grounds which the objects
of the said donations shall remain naenabe and not SUBJ
jec liable be seized for debts otherwise in the hands
of the Corporation of New Orleans, 1hO shall
der any prctencc Whdterer SELL exchange, giue other
dispose of them, toto part employ them
for to any other use, than tile Which they
turay destined to- shat there be made erected
them any constructions buildings, except, however,
the when the City Council shall think it convenient
for the general interest establish steam water works
any part of the baure hereby given which the said City
Council shall think fit to choose for that purpose. 1t
however agreed that the prohibition of erecting buildings
Constructions shall not be construed to the
Mayor and City Council of New Orleans, to establish
whaves to facilitate commerce when they shall deem it
convenient
This act was called by the parties to it g dona-
tion'' Edward Livingston, who knew something
of law and language, called it Donation Ste
phen Mazureau, who is walking encyclopedia of
civil law, and who signed the act, called it &c do
na,on.'' Rouffignac, the Mayor of the city, under
the authority of the City Council accepted it as
donation" and the Legislature of the State as
late as the year, 1886, gave it the same title and
under that title made it part Of the Charter of the
City. The Supreme Court however, In late de-
cision, have found for it new name. On the au-
thoriy of an old Latin saw Memo tacile presuntur
donare,'' which means, that "we are not easily to
suppose that a man would give away any thing"
this distinguished tribunal has constructed long
argument to prove that the parties to the act of
1920, either did not know what they were doing or
did not mean what they said. Their Honors can
not be made to understand how the " donors" could
have given away what now appears SO valuable,
without some weighty equivalent This equiva-
lent they find, in an acknowledgment of the title
OF the donors by the City, although in the act
itself nothing s said about such acknowledgment,
and no allusion is made to any dispute upon the
subject. Indeed, there could be none every one
was satisfied that the question of title put at
rest. 1t seems to us, that the learned body which
delivered the decision, might have found other and
strong motives for making the donation, had its
members reflected little on the actual condition
1
Deabgarre had appropriated all of the batture then
susceptible ofprivate use, the part beyond the New
Levee with the levee itself was required and by
law reserved for commercial purposes, and no one
twenty-eight years ago would have believed that
1t would extend to its present dimensions. The
battlre, therefore, was of no Use to Them but its
ownership would impose upon them the obligation
OF keeping the levee in RIPARIAN obligation which
might, in case the river should cut away instead of
increasing the landau event at all times possible
have imposed upon them very grievous burdens.
The police of the streets was also under the con-
troll of the City Council and the enjoyment of the
property of the donors depended in great measure
upon the manner in which that control was exer.
clsed 1t is not singular, therefore, that they gave
away what they could not use, and even under |
took to make gratuitous improvements which en-
HANGED the value of their own property, to throw
OFT from themselves the contingent expense of keep
ing the eyee in repair, and to live in good fellow
ship with those who had caused them great annov-
ance Heretofore, and who had the power to embar
rass them STILL
If the Judges of the Supreme Court were Obliged
to take an excursion In search of the motives of the
different parties to the contract, it would seem tn
US " nave bee1t more reasonable TO have SOuoht /
out those consistent with the expressed intention of
the contracting partes and with the nature ard |
form OF the act-than to have adopted an hypothe
Sis In contradiction to its very words, and ,mon
That hypothesis, utterly unsupported, to have
changed the character of the contract itseif-.mak
ng OF donation - the true motives for which |
ire apparent, g compromise - of title. which |
40 one then seriously questioned.
We have paused to make these remarks upon the |
ate decision of the Supreme Court, because, as if
Will hereafter appear, all the real difficulties which
attend the appropriation of the batture for private
purposes and for the public good grow out of that
ieclslon, and because We cannot but express our
egret that Judgment drawing after it such weighty
consequences should be based upon reasoning so |
Utterly tallacious. The space however, which these
emarks have occupied, and our determination to !
make these articles short, because, from the i'm
'ortance of the interests involved, we want them |
generally read, forces us to defer the further history
II the batture till our. next.