The daily crescent. [volume] ([New Orleans, La.]) 1848-1851, 1848-03-23
The Patture,

| in f3P
ture which extends along the front of the city from
nsIord street 10 lafayette, and showed how II
MIGHT he made available by the Council for the
increase of private wealth, the promotion OF the
commercial interest of the city, and for the supply
of the Municipal treasury. We, OF course 90 mol
eypect immediate action on the part of the fathers
of the city, but yet we cannot regard our words
as wasted Like bread cast upon the wa
ters,' they will bear abundant fruit after many
DAYS. when the furry of an election has supsiueo'
and it becomes, with few a matter OF greater
consideration how they can best deserve lliaH
by what means they can eontriye to obtain pupiic
station. G,
But as we remarked, the batture below the 81
Nary's Market is differently situated; ana III or
der that we may understand fully its condition. and
the respective rights of all parties, brief history
of the events connected herewith may be interest
mo. When the city of New Orleans was founded,
its extent was confined to the square OF the Guy,
ar what is now that portion of the First Muliici-
nalitv handed by Canal Rempart and Esplanade
streets Beyond the inhabited part OF the city up
yards ,vas what was called the . City Common"
and a5ioinino thu, Common the Jesuits plantation,
aytapdino twenty arpents in front on the Mississippi
ryer Ar the time of the suppression of the order,
:, ,-62 This plantation was sold in different lots,
of two of which lots Bertrand Grayier was pos
sessed in I7Ss-n which year he laid out that por-
,ion of them nearest the Mississippi, in streets,
squares and lots, and gave to 1t the name OF the
..Faubourg ST. Mary Many of these lots We're
sold during the life of Bertrand Gravier, and par
ticuarly one in 1889 to P. B. Poefarre, which be-
came the subject of the celebrated and conclusive
decision on the rights of riparian propretors, IN the
suit of Morgan Us. Livingston ct a. After the
death of Bertrand Gravier, his brother Jean Grvier
entered upon his succession as heir, under the
benefit of inventory" and by decree OF the
Spanish tribunals, in August, 1887, had the pro-
perty of his brothers succession djudicaed to him.
This property included as he supposed, and as
every one at that time believed, all the rights of
Bertrand Gravier to the unsold lots in the $ Fau-
bourg St Mary and to the alluvlon forming IN
front of those next the river.
In 1903 the territory of Louisiana was ceded to
the United States Immediately the whole aspect
of things was changed-the alluvon in front of the
.:faubourg ST. Mary which had hitherto been
deemed useful only as furnishing the inhabitants
with the means Of filling up their lots, or pre-
pairing materials for building their houses. it was
foreseen would become source of great wealth
and the scene of n.immense commerce. In 1904,
Jean Gravier, probably at the instance of Living
ston and Deabigarre, who had or were about to
purchase his rights, attempted the appropriation OF
portion of the batture TO his private uses-in this
attempt he was resisted by the people and by the
city authorities. Thereupon he commenced a suit
against the Mayor, Aldermen and inhabitants of
the City of New Orleans praying that they might
be enjoned from disturbing him, and that he might
be quoted in the enjoyment of his possession of the
batture in question. The city, in reply, denied the
ownership of Jean Gravier, and especially pleaded
that Bertrand Gravier. by laying out his plantation
into faubourg by selling lots on the levee ETC.,
had abandoned his right to the alluvion, and that
the battureewas public property to be used pub
lie purposes. After along and able litigation the
Superior Court of the Territory, in 1907, decided in
favor of Gravier and against the pretensons of the
city. This decision was final upon the whole mat
ter at issue--the facts upon which it was based
were not questioned, and the principles have been
frequently reafirmed In the case of Morgan Us.
Livingston, before referred to, the whole doctrine
of the right of accretion as we'll in urban as in
rural estates, with all its exceptions and limita-
tons, is fully examined and settled in the suits of
Henderson ct. al. Us. The Mayor, Aldermen ct al,
and in the more recent case of Municipality No.
Two Us. The Cotton Press Company, the rights
of the city to and over the aluval formations, are
with equal certainty disposed Of And all these
cases decide that the right Of property in the allu.
zion uests in the front proprietors the administra
ton of said property, while its use is required for
the public purposes of commerce, resting with the
constituted authorities Of the city or parish.
tits true that the Supreme Court, in late opinion,
which we shall soon have occasion particularly to
examine, intimated that the decision in Gravier's
case was not conclusive, inasmuch as Livingston
and Delabgarre, and not Gravier, were the true
parties to the suit With all respect to that high
tribunal, we may be permitted to ask, whether the
substitution Of the name of Livingston for Gravier
would have changed the facts Or the law of the
case? Whether the city would have had any more
right against Edward Livingston holding under
Jean Gravier than it had against Gravier himself1
We may also ask upon what they base the insinua-
ton that if the question We're now an open one, a
different result might be arrived at by tribunals
when the whole course of judicial action for the
last forty years has only tended to strengthen and
carry out the principles upon which the Judgment
in 1907 was rendered!
upon the late opnon it shall receive due attention
in its turn. -
After the decision Of the Superior Court, in 1907,
Livingston and Delabigarre, who had succeeded to
the rights of Jean Gravier, went on with the i'm
provement Of their property when suddenly another
claimant arose. The city had been defeated, and
the Government of the United States stepped III to
claim the property at least to prevent its enjoy
ment by those who We're, or believed themselves, its
owners and Mr.. jefferson, with military force,
droye the workmen of Livingston from the premises,
under the pretence that he was empowered y to
prevent settlements being made on lands coded to
the United States, until authorized by law Liv-
lngston's long and able resistance TO this usurpa-
tion--his triumphant yindicaton of his right-his
wilhering reply the Presidents argument in favor
of the proceeding-are too we'll known to need any
review here even did time and space permit lis to
enter upon the discussion. 1t is enough that Mr..
Jefferson, armed with power-sustaned by a large