New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1871-12-10
NEW ORLEANS REPUBLICAN,, SUNDAY. DECEMBER TO- 1877


; and an ordinance of the city, to occupy an
use the two strips of land on Elysian Fielt
street hereinbefOre described, upon whic
the company, plaintiff. claims the right
lay its tracks This issue involves mike
questions of fact and law, of ownership.
realty, and the question of the paramount
authority to administer the public place
dispute.
l. There have been few instances Of litig,
ton more notable than that involving til
right 0. ownership in and to the batture
front O1 the city of New Orleans 1t ha
occupied the attention Of the courts in th
State, and OF the Territory. for nearl
seventy years. The Supreme Court of tn
United States has passed upon certain c
questions involved several of the maste
minds of the country have devoted thei
most earnest attention. In the progress q
the contest, President Jefferson was en-
gagged III violent personal controversy wit
Edward Livingston, who was esteeme'
among the foremost publicists of the age
The importance Of and interest in thi
litigation, resulted from the peculiar char
acter OF the property in dispute. At thu
particular point upon the Mississippi tn
bend of the river aud the course of the cur
rents cause constant sedinentary deposits
so that during the period of a hundred
| years the accrctiOns have amounted Il
many squares Of very valuable Land. To
whom should this product Of the river be
long
There were three theories Tie city o
New Orleans claimed it as an accretion t.
| the public streets and levees or lGays
| fronting upon the stream.
The front proprietors claim it as accre
| ton 10 their property. maintaining thai
| their riparian rights were not effected by
reason OF their land being within the uuni
c:pality, or by the fact that tie banks OF
the stream were subject to srrvitude in
! favor OF the public. and was separated
from their property by IA public street
And the United States government
claimed TIE batture in front Of the city. as
the successor of the sovereign of France
The following extract IRON the adms-
sions of counsel Rec, page 30 establish
the historT Of the property above Canal
street:
For the purposes Of this trial. II IS ad
mtted that the king of France prior to
the year 1863, granted to the order of
Jesuits for plantation. certain property
lying on the Mississippi river above Canal
street. having thirty-two arpents front on
the Mississippi river. and running back to
depth of about fifty arpents: and that.
for the same purpose, he granted to various
other persons property lying above the
atore said thirt y-twO arpents.
That in 1868 the Jesuits plantation was
contiscated by the French government. di
vided and sold; the first subdivision above
Canal street, sold as aforesaid, contained.
say seven arpents face az deur". and five
other equal subdivisions were sold in like
manner. That Gravier acquired the first
subdivision about 1889; the second being
Immediately above Gravier. was acquired
by De!ord Sarpy; the boundary line be-
tween said claim being now designated by
DelOrd street That Gravier divided his
property in 1888 into squares and lots. and
annexed them to the city az Suburb St.
Marie Sarpy converted lis property from
rural into urban i'll 1906.
That the locuc IN quo above Canal street
ia embraced within the Gravier or Sarpy
claims. That when the aforesaid change
from rural to urban WAS made. the street
now called Tchoupitonlas was then the
nearest street to the river: that at that time
there was a batture in front of Tchoupitou-
las street: that the same. without any form
or ceremony. was. as early Il, EoS. dedi
Gated to public use, and since that time has
been used by the public as u lorns pudlicus.'
While it is intensely interesting to follow
the history of this must celebrated litiga-
ton: to read and admire the displays OF
classic leanring and eloquence of both
bench and bar. /. is, as to tlis
suit, utterly Improbable The ques
tons or ownership involved have been
definitely and finally settled 10y the courts
of last resort. The accretions TO the bat
ture in front of the city OF New Orleans
belong to the front riparian proprietors.
Is La. l93
But this case has to do with an incident
the most important incident Of the batturc
J, Ia, a.
affirmed the title Of the front proprietors to
the battuce. This victory proved, however
barren to Livingston and
his associates, for though they owned the
batture they could not use it because the
city of New Orleans refused to advance
the leVee or street, ana the owners had no
authority to do so. In 1919 tie Supreme
Court rendered decision in the case of
Morgan Va. Livingston ct al. e NJ. - , in
which the titles of Livingston and Others
-ranSferees OF Gravier We're questioned if
not entirely overthrow. These facts re
suited IN a compromise with the city of
New Orleans, which was entered into Sep |
ember 20. 1890. By this act Edward |
Livingston and his seven co-tront own
,rs of the suburb s.. Mary gave to the
,ity the batture. They also gave the right |
o extend the streets up to the levee, bound !
themselves to build the wharves in front of |
heir property. and presented to the city
enough cash to construct a market upon |
lie pro perry. The act first recites that the |
ionors. wishing to favor the public in the |
lse of the river side which lies in front of |
aid batture, and to facilitate the cOmmui-
alton between the streets which will ter |
innate at that place. have. by these pres
nts made a donation inter riros and ire
ocab!e. and in the best forms in which a |
onation may he valid. to the Mayor. |
1. 4. =.
Rec. p. -.
This act of compromise. or donation as it
'as called at the time. was examined and
ase Of De La Bigarre vs.. Second Munici-
atty. An, 80. After reviewing
he facts and circumstances attending
he act of donation. the court held that
was no donation, though having the form.
ut a compromise. subject only to the rules
ppicable to a communicative contract. 1t was
stipul ation. though carefully disguised by
'hich the public obtained the existing bat
ure. with the right to future accretions
nd certain other advantages named, in
of lettin. Mr. Livingston and
is associates alone in what they possessed.
The compromise subsequently received
le sanction of the Legislature. In 1896,
| an act amending the charter of the city,
lets 1896, page IS. section ll). it was pro
lded that no disposition shall ever be
ade of the batture IN front of the faubourg
t. Mary i'll violation OF the transaction or
)mprOmIse i'll relation to said batture, en-
red into" etc. and tina: the municipality
the upper section Of the city of New Or
ans shall not in any manner obstruct or
npede the inhabitants OF any portion of
lie city of New Orleans in the free
SO and enjoyment o: any portion of their
shts on said batture."
As the years rolled OF and lett their his
Try, SO the currents os the changing river