Pointe Coupee Democrat. [volume] (False River [i.e. New Roads], Parish of Pointe Coupee [La.]) 1858-1862, 1859-02-19
Senator Benjamin and the Houma Titles.

from Il letter received !rUln tA2t gentle
paan:
AS an effort may be made to injurc me
at Baton Rouge by atlcctin" Il belief i'll
some absurd charges contained in the
newspapers, about q confirmation of land
i'll favor of my colleague, send you
herewith the papers, (biIs and rcports)
which speak for themselves,
1t is somewhat sipgElar that the
charges should tie against me because |
WAS Chairman Of the Committee that re-
ported the bill to the .>cnatc, and not Il
word uttered against Mr. .Soqdi~e who
was a member Of the Committee who
reported the bill to the WoaM. He is as
incapable, as | trust ! am, of abusing
Legislative position for amy unworthy
purpose, and only alludc to the fact to
show that the charge is dictated solely
by personal hostility to ne and by no be-
lief i'll its truth.
The bill as passed confirmed the titles
of over a MoumM citizens for more than
one million Of acres. 1t ought to have
passed more than Il generation ago, and
you Will see by thcrcport that the Leyls-
Mtufcof LoHisiona sent 4 mcmoriol 10 Cou-
grcss asking for this confirmation, and
that the Committee of the 18th Congress
reported that the confirmation had alrca-
dy been granted, and that no further
legislation was necessary.
This, however, proved ultimately to
be Il mistake, SO that when a bill was
offered for the confirmation Of Missouri
land claims, | thought the opportunity
favorable for Louisiana grants also.
But it is said the bill was "smngyled
through" Now, look at the date of the
papers, and You will see that the bill
was before Congress eighteen months.
First Senate bill No. 473, introduced
10th December, 1856; second report
made 7th February, 1851; the bill and
report were printed and nothing further
done that session.
Third Senate bill No. Al, introduced
10y Polk, of Missouri, 5th January. 1858.
Fourth Senate report, made by me
18th March, 1858, being copy Of re-
port Of previous year
This bill and report were again print
cd, and the bill passed the Senate i'll re-
guIar turn, on the 10th of April, 1858,
u day on which single objection would
have defeated it. Sec Congressional
Globe Of that date
The bill was read in the House on the
10Th April, 1888; was referred to the
Committee on the 18th May, 1858: was
reported back by Blair, of Missouri,
29tb May, 1858, and passed on motion
of Phelps, of Missouri, lst June, 1858.
What do you think of such "smug
CLING? A bill twice reported in the
Senate, printed in the newspapers,
all its stages published in the Globe,
taken up in regular order on objection
day, eighteen months before the two
Houses, no attempt at any time to get
it up out of turn, with q reservation OF
the rights of all adverse claimants, is
charged to have passed, secretly, i'll Or
der to favor Mr.. SIidcll
| have obtained from Mr.. Sldell
statement of what interest he had in
the lands confirmed, and it appears that
he was one of q number who purchased
each oac.ninM of q tract confirmed to
Conway. The land was bought by them
more than twenty years ago, by act be-
fore T. Grima, Notary Public, on 18th
May, 1886, at u cost Of - 10 per ar
pent, or about So per acre-it now
stands the purchasers in 50 per acre,
counting interest. Taxes have been
paid Oh it for nearly half a century, and
the title was complete Spanish grant,
requiring no confirmation, and SO de-
clared by the late lamented Isaac I.
Preston, in his opinion to the owners. |
have seen his opinion, yet enemies are
found to say, and persons may be found
to believe that the desire to cover this
fractional interest of Mr. Slidcll, was the
motive of Mr.. Sandigc and myself in
passing through both Houses this great
remedial measure for our citizens. Now
mind, | do not mean to say that if Mr.
Slidell had been the only party interest
ed, would not have done exactly what
| did, because | knew it was just and
right, and | entirely contenn and dcs-
pisc the malice of those who imputc
foul motives to crafty personal cnnlity.
But the idea that was not to do my
public duty, i'll causing the titles of our
citizens to be confirmed to vast posses
sions owned by them for generations,
because Mr.. slidell happened to have an
interest in common with them, Is So III
effaby absurd, that feel degraded III
rcfuting it.
Now, on this subject, wish you
would say for me, that, SO far from feel
ing regret l would d. the same thing