The Donaldsonville chief. [volume] (Donaldsonville, La.) 1871-current, 1877-11-03
History Of the
HOUMAS LAND CLAIM.
By RoBT. H. BRADFORD.
[Reprodueed from Drupeau de I'd sce,asio,s.l
CHAPTER V

30I. decided in May, 1861, the, last
case involving the Houmas claim, the
defendants title originated in the
law for presumption floats of the 29th
of May, 1880, "A q. S. Stat. at L., 420, J
as revived by the act of the 10Th of
June, 1884. 10, $751; Under these
acts, Marie Douglas and Alexis Bras
set proved a presumption settlement
on lot /, section 90, t. 8. S., r. l. E..
South Eastern District, La, East of
the river. This lot contains l46.06
acres and lies on the southern bank
of bayou Manchac or liver, Iberyille.
about four miles from the Mississippi
river, in Ascension parish, and the
claimed limits of the Houmas grant.
Each of these preemptors being enti-
tied 70 100 acres of land, and having
made satisfactory proof of settlement
before the register and receiver of
the U. s. land Office in New Orleans,
then, '4Agreeablysto the provisions
of the last section of the act of Con-
gress approved on the 10Th of June,
1884, Marie Dugas and Alexis Bras
set were permitted to take land else
where in order to make up the guam
tity the law allows. They in conse-
quence entered the section No. 90, in
Township No. 5, of Range No. 8.
East, containing l6f .66-I00th acres"
being the tract in controversy On
the list of September 1885, these pre-
emptors Jointly paid for the two
tracts above described, as public
land, at I,25 an acre, and the
usual certificate and receipt issued to
them Afterwards. patent certificates
issued upon these entries. After
wards, the sale of these tracts was
cancelled, for alleged conflict with the
Houmas claim, and the tract in con-
troversy was sold and patented to the
plaintiff as State swamp land.
In the Supreme Court, the case was
argued for the plaintiff by Adam
Beatty, one of the ablest land lawyers
of the State. Judge Fred. H. Farrar,
of PUiute Coupee parish, together
with the writer of these articles, APP
peared for the defense. The ones
ton before the Supreme Cour: turned
on the legality of the presumption set
Element of Dugas and Brasset, for it
was admitted by the defendants
counsel, that if such settlement was
Illegal, the location of the float was
illegal also. The unanimous decision
of the Supreme Court, as rendered
by Chief Justice Merrick, reiterated
the doctrine of Foley Us. Harrison, Is
A., o6,) affirmed the Judgment of the
District Court, and sustained the le-
gality of the presumption and float.
:" The District Judge has decided,
and we concur with him in his con-
clusion," say the Supreme Court,
" That the proof does not satisfactory
~ show the primary claim of Dugas
and Brasset to have been within the
Houmas grant, as confirmed by Con-
gress prior to their entry.n ZIG A., |
303.)
In the argument of this case, the |
Houmas title was deliberately traced |
and discussed, for it devolved on the
defendant to show that the settlement |
by Dugas and Brasset WAS on public |
land of the United States, liable to
entry ut the minimum price of 81 25
an acre, aud this involved the neces-
sity of showing that the back couces-.
sion of the Houmas claim was void.
Adam Beatty made an able argument
for the plaintiff, but acquisced in the
decision, though under the second
section of the third article of the fed
eral constitution, as enforced by the
twenty fifth section of the judiciary
of act September "a, 1889, Il y. S.
stat. at T., S3), he might have taken
the case TO the Supreme Court of the
United States by writ of error. The
ease is, therefore, in effect, definitive
Of the d0able1coneession of the Hou-
mas title. II Dugas and Brasset had
4 right to settle on that concession, as
public land. others had the same
right-and they retain itsstiH, because
we have seen that the legal status of
he Hounds title has net changed
since the admission the Louisiana ON
he 9Th of April, 1879.
But, the Houmas claimants have
from time to time, that adj
hitting their double concession to be
old, still it remains protected from
seiS vi tSHSi@ uNfCASO atSDoSlbiUH Nv
he United States, under the saving {
lause of the sixth section of the act
Il March 3, 1911, III U. s. Stat at T.,
63, providing for the sale of the
'ublic lands in the Territory of Or
cans, etc. That clause is as follows:
And provided also, that till after the final {
ecision OF Congress thereon, no tract of i,
md SHAH be offered for sale, the clam to
hicls has been in due time, and according
law, presented to the Register of the
and Office, aud fled in his office for the
lrpese of being investigated by the com !.
issioners, etc.
We haye-seen, however, that the
oumas claim had not been presented
to law, for the plats and
atspE lied By the claimants under
lefourths section OF the act of March a
fSD5, lTI' ~. s. Stat. at T., 324, t
ere as to the double concession, il s
gaa aid void, and did not distin- 8
tisll between that concession aud
efront concession. Aud, admitting
issnositi0n to be false, the old. pre- q
mption eBtries in the double con- +;
ssioil are, from various aud obvious ,,
IL.