The New Orleans bulletin. [volume] (New Orleans [La.]) 1874-1876, 1875-03-26
The Most important Case in Tween
~ Years.

The readers OF the BULIEIIS Will TeIeinDe
that two days ago we published synopsis G
bill in chancery on the part Of the Stat
asking for an injunction restraining the exc
cution Of Judgment obtained by Mrs
Gaines against The city, on the grounds TIA
the land seized was batture property, and va
dedicated entirely to public use.
Mrs. Gaines Wednesday filed her answer
denying that this property was public anC
alleged that by notarial act the several from
proprietors in lSJ1 had transferred THEN
riparian rights to the city and that the city
became the owner a. fast as the accretion.
made land in front.
Yesterday morning the question came up in
chambers before Judge Woods, and as the
sale under Mrs Gainess execution was fixed
for noon, there was necessarily but brief
arguments had. After Judge Campbell, who
seems to have taken 4. T. Fields place as
representative of the State, and J. @. A. Eel
lows, Esq, had closed, Judge Woods decided
as follows:
feel very much embarrassed in passing OH
this question without an opportunity to make
which its importance demands The argu-
ment heard this morning does not change
my opinion of yesterday, and will give my
opinion now upon the case as it appears from
what have heard Of it,
1t seems to me that this property is vested
in the city Of New Orleans for public uses,
and that being so vested, whether by dona-
ton or compromise with the original front
prOprietors, 1t cannot be diverted from that
use by the city without the consent Of the
General Assembly.
1t is said that by the accretions on the
bank of the river more property is now under
the control of the city under this grant than
is necessary for the public uses.
1t seems to me that the city, without the
consent of the Legislature, has no right to
decide that question and attempt to dispose
OF any portion of that property, though it
may reserve enough for the public USES III
my opinion it can not be done without the
consent Of the Legislature
1t was said yesterday that such an act had
been passed, but il seems to me that the act
Of 1858 does not meet the case rs | under
stand that act, it applies to that portion Of
the city front where the batture is private
property, and il allows the front proprietor to
take action against the city for the purpose
OF compelling the city to set Oft so much Of
1t as Is not III public use. Now, the city, il |
seems to me- cannot consistently, with the |
terms Of the grant, use that property for pri- |
vate use, or sell ii unless it has the consent OF
the State of Louisianl.
These views are hastily formed, and are not |
to myself. But it seems to me |
that 1t IS proper to keep things in StGtt g,to |
until the case can be argued more fully and |
determined therefrom. | direct that the in |
junction 80 forth and remain IN force until |
the final hearing Of the case.
To those who have knowledge of the past |
history Of the bature litigation of years gone
by, this will at once awaken an interest and
Importance of a magnitude as great as the
immense amounts involved.
BY Judge Woodss decision yesterday the
title to millions of batture property sold by
he city, between Canal street and Delord, is
placed in doubt, and a sea of litigation threat
ms to pour IN upon us III Il tidal wave.
Long blocks of stores. warehouses and manu-
actorles along New Leyee, Fulton, Front and
Water are involved if this decision be sus-
aimed.
Virtually Judge Woods decides that the city
lever had the right to ALLEVIATE any batture
property. There is something behind all this
t is said the Chattanooga Railroad Company
will 10y it acquire an enormous amount OF our
liver front, is its grant came from the State
whilst other private owners hold from the
ity.
In n few words, the issue involved is,
neither the city has such control and owner
hip over the batture property that she can
N NJ II I'm l,a bar !
an certainly seize il for corporation debt
The present situation of the case is this
lrs. Gaines obtained Judgment against the
ty Of New Orleans for i certain sum OF
loney; she SEXES certain property on the
yer front to satisfy it; the State files bill in
hancery praying IN injunction against this
sizure, on the ground that this property on
lie river front does not belong to the city,
ut 70 the people for their common use.
Mrs Gaines answers that bill by saying the
tie is in the city and that her creditors can
'ize il, because by nataral act the owners
property along the river bank conveyed
leir rights to the corporation and that the
upreme Court has passed upon the matter
n these ISSUES Judge Woods decided as
boye.
The claim Of The city that all the batture
roperty belongs to the people as locus I'c5-
rs is based upon a transit called the Liv.
gston Compromise, made ia the year $50,
, Edward Livingston, whereby the riparian
roprietors coded and alienated to New or
ans all the lands lying in tu6org S. Mary
front of their property for public purposes.
At that time the line ran about where New
evee or Peters street now is, and at various
mes since the city has sold many squares, as
e alluyion from the river increased its de-
osit in front. These squares So sold have
zen bullt upon, and now form almost the
lsiness center for the Western trade.