The daily crescent. [volume] ([New Orleans, La.]) 1848-1851, 1850-02-07
The Batture No. 4.

The case of Minor, against the Municipality of
which began to speak in my last, was entirely
different from that Of Delabgarre and its decision
depended on other principles altogether So far
from disturbing the decision of the State Court, it
was distinctly avowed by the plaintiffs counsel and
by the Judge that to the construction of the CON
tract of September, 1920, and the degree of inter-
est title it conferred upon the city or the public
the opinion of the Supreme Court of Louisiana
would be respected and followed in the Federal
Court. The question in that case was merely 10ho
parties to tie contract and particularly toas
Wilkins, the assignoy Of tile plaintiff party or
bound By it, In order to understand this, it is
necessary to say, that John Linton and J. C. Will
kins formed commercial partnership in New Or
leans Linton lived here, and managed the bust
ness of the house. and Wilkins in Natchez, where
they also carried their business. Linton pur-
chased, IN the name of Wilkins IL Linton, an undi
yded portion of lot Tchoupitoulas street jointly
with Winter and Mccall. In making that pur-
chase, and in partition afterwards with Winter
and Mccall, Linton acted alone in the name of the
firm. In front of that lot is situated part of the
batture in dispute The partners afterwards sold
the lot between Tchoupitoulas street and the New
Levee to Mr.. Laande When the contract of the
goth of September was passed, Linton signed it in
the name of the firm, precisely as he had in making
the purchase But by some singular oversight of
the notary, the names of Wilkins & Linton, are
not mentioned in the caption of the act as parties
Linton however, it is admitted signed it, gave the
notes required, secured by mortgage, and he and
his heirs have always aequesced in it. This error
omission of the notary was seized upon more
than twenty-five years afterwards, and long after
the death of Linton, radical defect, and it was
contended that neither Wilkins nor Linton were
parties the contract of dedication at ALL And of
that opinion Judge McCaleb from whose
judgement writ of error is to be prosecuted in the
Supreme Court of the United States Far from
deciding that the batture was not dedicated to pub
lie use by that contract, the Court merely said that
Wilkins was not party to twas not one of
the grantOrs, and that his assignee was still the
owner of about fifteen feet front of it, extending to
the river. 1t would be indicate to comment upon
this decision; it is enough to say that the counsel
OF the Municipality have advised an appeal, and are
confident it will be reversed. At any rate, it de.
cides nothing except the title to very small por-
ton of the alluvon, not even disturbing the tract
which belonged to Linton himself The only SIN
gular thing about it is, that Wilkins never made
that notable discovery until nearly thirty years had
elapsed after the date of the contract and that his
assignee would not trust the State Courts, in
which he first brought his action to decide it ac-
cording to the law of Louisiana
If the Legislature should authorize the sale of a
part of the batture, prayed for by the City Coun-
ell, provision will undoubtedly be made for reserv-
ing from sale such particular portions are in con-
troversy particularly that claimed by Minor and
Delabigarre. But whether they do or not it is OBJ
vous that act of the Legislature can affect their
legal rights The object is rather to get rid of
nuisance and expensive incumbrance, and provide
for partial liquidation of the city debt than to de-
stroy any vested rights. On the contrary, the
step now about to be taken ought above all others
to be desired by the adverse claimants, because
Will afford them an opportunity to come forward
and eitectually vindicate their supposed rights
Let the part OF the batue not required for public
uses be restored to commerce and reduced to
money and all the parties will still have an oppor-
tunity either to compromise or to litigate their
rights 1t is desirable that this long vexed contro-
yersy should be terminated and put to rest. It has
agitated the community long enough 1t has lost
immense sums in itgaton-heretofore useless. nm
profitable litigation. If the plan suggested by the
Council be adopted so far from being an act of in
justice and spoliaton, it will afford the means of
accomplishing two great purposes-that of re-
llevng the city from heavy burden, and of finally
and forever determining the question to whom the
proceeds shall belong. Those who joined in the
act OF donation or dedication may urge the right to
the reVerslon OF the property and every conflicting
interest and pretension finally settled. My object
in addressing the public on this subject is not to
create any prejudice against particular claims or to
create an impression the public mind hostile to
any one who thinks he has right to any part of
the batture. 1t is, on the contrary, my desire to
remove any preiudices in relation to the measure
now. proposed which am convinced is required by
public utility
In my next propose to speak of the great case
OF the heirs of Deslondes, to which publication in
the Delta some days since alluded. b.