The daily crescent. [volume] ([New Orleans, La.]) 1848-1851, 1850-01-24
The Nature.

/
There nothing connected with the city of New Orleans
about which much has been written and said and about
which little really known by the public large as the
Baure in front of the Second Municipality. 1t is subject
OF constant msconcepton and misrepresentation. The me-
mortal about to be presented TO the Legislature the part of
the City Council and which has been published in the morn
ing papers, has again attracted public attention this subject
and the moment appears to me favorable for giving the pub
lie of its real history and its present condition
This propose to do in simple manner, order that the
public may distinctly understand the of this ques
ton it relates all parties Interested The Council in that
memorial ask Of the Legislature permission dispose of
part of the Batture, which real nuisance in order TO
pay off part of the city debit and TO relieve the city of the
burdensOme and expensive duty Of keeping and maintain
ing wide of vacant land without any utility to the
public The right of the Legislature do so and the expe
dieney OF the if legal the only questions
discussed and considered.
1t is necessary to give a very minute history of this
celebrated controversy 1t is enough say that Bertrand
Gravier the acknowledged of the front land under
the will of his wife, which prOve< and ordered to be
executed in 1872 and that his heirs were recognised by the
Superior Court the Territory early 1904 1906 as the
beed that that time Tehoupouas the port and
that boats up and landed that street. That was the
Levce; and the Batture beyond that covering what
the lots between Ich0upoUtas street asd the New Levea
street, the place in dispute TIE heirs of Grayer, and
those who claimed under him OF his heirs insisted upOing
the Batture their absolute property Without any
ference the part of the Gig CounoiE They insisted the
right to construct new LeVee, without the authortyot the
City Council in advance of TchOupit0ulas street, and
ally did construct what is called the New Levee The
city resisted these petensous, and long struggle carried
Mr. Livingston the leading spirit and had the great
est interest IN the matter he holding under John Graver, the
heir of Bertrand. The consequence that he and the
other prupreors fronting Tchoupouas street could not
enjoy the disputed premises then mud bank but
ceptble certain extent of being filled up and reclaimed
by of the New Leyee, become valuable prop
erty fronting the river. proacted negotiation car
red with the Council with view the amcabe adjust
ment of the controversy, in such give the
/. Fr.l., n
Levee, the undiputed enjoyment of their property and at
the the public the of the bank of
the river for the accommodation of the public, without any
interference the part of the front propneo. The Council
insisted that the front proprietors should divide Qulas
street by giving up part of their land on hat
street next the river. The prolessed obee ties
was by solemn treaty to abandon to the pubic Won
then existing, which might afterwards be
the New Levee and the river and to retain their properly
between Tchoupioulas and the New Levee undis
turbed. No had the least idea that wide Battue
exists would accumulae and indeed it doubt
u whether the river by eapneous change in its course,
might not wash away what already existed There then
the outside of the New Leyee only strip of lat
ture upon the upper part Boats and vessels then, and for
long time afterwards and discharged their eargOes
on the New Leyee AT LENGTH in $50 the City Council, by
string OF resolutions, dictated the of the treaty,
contract, which hoped would forever terminate this
controversy, and which did suspend for twenty-five
That treaty executed between the front pTopreto and
the Cy on the 2Oh of September, 1890 by heQre H.
lavergne notary public. As the whole upon
the character and import Of that treaty. and the which
the highest Court of the State has uniformly taken of it, it
proper TO give full analysis of il and call the atenon of
the pablo to It's various clauses and spulatOns. This pro-
pose 20 do in number-bnt may say that the Su-
preme Court OF this State has always held that the
between the front propneton and the City constituted the
BattuTe public place. in which the City has kind of title
OF which the Council dispose by sale, but that it is des
tined By that contract open for public use that
was forever abandoned by the front propeor who retained
no rights whatever in IT, but that they had received
equivalent the free enjoyment of the lots between New Leyee
street and Tehoupitoulas street. In Short that 1t was COM
promise OF existing controversies relating TO the Battue B.