Sugar planter. [volume] (West Baton Rouge [i.e. Port Allen, West Baton Rouge Parish, La.]) 1856-1925, 1856-03-15
Tho (srOsse-Teto Boundary BILL.

to define the boundaries between the parishes
Of lberville and West Baton Rouge. The
object Of the Bill was to annex permanently
to the parish Of IberviIle, She territory s't'a-
ted between Bayou Grosse-Tete and the
Atchaflaya. Upon the introduction Of this
Bill, Mr.. FAvnor introduced a substitute, in
substance the same as the Bill passed by both
Houses of the General Assembly at the ses-
sion of 1855, submitting the boundary ques-
ton to the vote OF the people Of the territory
/, dispute. The Bill went before the Gov
ernor for his signature, in the last FIVE days
Of the session and instead OF returning it to
the House with his veto before the close Of
the session, kept it in his pocket unit! the
opening OF the present session and then sent
it back with his veto, which in substance
amounted to this That a. the citizens Of the
parish Of Iberville had always been taxed
for the benefit Of Gross-Tete, the question
should have been submitted to the vote OF
the whole parish Of Iberville!
The Bill and substitute came up in their
regular order during the evening session Of
Wednesday nth inst, when Mr.. FAvRor
spoke in favcr Of the substitute, and was re-
Piled to by Mr.. Downs who made a motion
to lay the substitute on the table which was
refused by a vote OF 10 yeas to 22 nays. The
House then adjourned, the members having
broken quorum. On the evening session Of
Thursday I'D, the Bill and substitute. again
came up among the unfinished business Of the
day previous, when Mr.. DowSs made a
g,eat Democratic speech in favor Of his Bill,
and showing clearly and demonstratively
that party spirit prompted his exertions.-
Mr.. D. finding that his efforts were Of no
avail, offered All amendment that the vote Of
both parishes and Grosse-T ete should be TAX
en- on the subject, the yeas and nays were
called and the amendment was adopted
Some fu, thcr discussion ensuing, on motion
the whole matter was laid on the table, which
motion was unanimously carried.
In defence of his substitute, Mr.. FAVOR
spoke as follows:
Mr.. FAvKor, said-That he rose to perform
a duty imposed UPON him by the constitution
and the solemn obligation he had taken to
support ia duty that he owed to the State
at large as one Of its Representatives upon
the floor OF the House, duty that he owed
his constituents III indicating and defending
their rights.
He said that in order to arrive at a full un-
Outstanding ofthe law and fact, he would beg
leave to refer to the acts Of 1926, 1927 and
1928. After reading the acts, he resumed as
follows:
In the first Of the above Acts, it appears
that the Atch afalaya river in all its courses,
was made and constituted the western boun-
Diary OF the Parish OF West Baton Rouge, and
commissioners were appointed to survey the
limit as established in the act.
The same year lls26) another act was pass
ed. suspcndiny the operation OF the act above
referred to, until the commissio ners appoint
ed under said act should make their report.
In 1927. an act was passed. aud commis-
sioners were appointed to report upon the
practicability OF opening a road from Gross
Iete to the Mississippi river and as a matter
OF convenience to the settlers OH said Bayou,
that section Of country was annexed to the
parish Of Iberville.
hA A'~" nv u kl% w
ment on Bayou Gross-lete u the parish OF
~Ibervilie until a good practicable road was
built from said Bayou to the Mississippi river.
the terminus OF which, should be within three
miles above or below the court house OF West
Baton Rouge.
Upon the faith Of this Legislative act Of
1873. the citizens OF West Balois Rouge. took
stock TO a large amount in the Rail- Road
which IS now IN process Of construction from
the mississippi river to Bayou Crosse Txte,
believing that as soon as the road was built. the
Gross Iete settlement would revert back to
their parish.
The question now arises, whether West
Baton Rouge has not a vested right in the ter
rtory lying west of Bayou Gross-Tete, and
whether the Legislature would not be passing
a law divestlng that parish Of those rights
and impairing the obligation of a contract.
were they to adopt the bill introduced by the
member from lberville. II the permanent
anne xation of the Crosse ete settlement de-
ponds upon a contingency established by Leg
islative enactment. can You deprive one OF
the parties to the contract-the citizens of
West Baton Rouge-of the benefit of the same
when they have accomplished that which
the law requires them to do? In other words
Gross Tete is to belong to " est Baton Rouge
as soon as a road is built now that the road is
built, that the expense of the erection of the
same is incurred, can you rescind the contract
stipulated in the Act Of 1928, and performed
in good faith by West Baton Rouge without
violating article los Of the constitution =
Mr. here read the article.)
Mr.. F. said that he would call the attention
Of members to article s Of the constitution.
because, if the bill before the House was
adopted, the parish of West Baton Rouge
without the Grosse-Tete country would
be left with an area of about two hum
dled and twenty square miles. when the spirit
IT not the exact letter of the article requires
SIX hundred and twenty-five square miles to