The Donaldsonville chief. [volume] (Donaldsonville, La.) 1871-current, 1877-10-20

for plaintiff before the production
of the testimony. On the 9th of
January, 1912, communication from
Mr.. AGallatin of the day before had
been laid before the House, accompa-
MED by a copy of the report of the
commissioners oil claims not con-
frmed by them. The report did not
contain a word about the Houmas
claims. On the 2nd of June, 1858,
Congress, seeing Mr.. Gallatin's letter
and tile report presented to them by
that letter, passed an act providing
for claims thus reported but not pre-
viously provided for. OF course,
therefore, the benefit of the confrma-
ton intended by the act of 1858, can
not be extended to claims not referred
to in Mr.. Galatians letter in the ac-
companying report. A decision by
the board in favor of claimant is a
Judgment. Judgments are valid,
voidable, or void. If the court has
jurisdiction and the evidence and the
proceedings sanction the judgment,
that Judgment is valid, and needs no
confirmation. If the court has juris-
diction, but the proceedings or testi-
mony be grossly Illegal, the Judgment
is voidable; and confirmation, leg
islative or otherwise, is appropriate.
But, if the court has no Jurisdiction,
the Judgment is void-it is a nonen
| tity, and Il future statute, confrma-
tory of judgments or decisions gener-
ally, should not be construed to en-
brace such IA judgment.
If this view of the principles be
just, then the decisions of Lewis and
Grymes in favor of the three Houmas
claims are not confirmed by the act
of 1858 since each of those claims
exceeds a league square, and was
| therefore beyond the extraordinary
special jurisdiction conferred by the
act of the Bird of March, l807,-even
assuming that the statute could re-
troaet to the date of the pretended
confirmation by the commissioners,
and that they had really reported the
| Houmas claims to the House in the
manner limited by the act of 1858.
This construction of the act of 1858
does not render its second section in
operative. The claims of James Viii
lery, No. Il9, (4merican State Papers
-Pabic Lands, II, 286, GREEN'S ed. J
Norbert Boudusquier, No. 1872, 10.
1927 Louis Trudeau, No. 339, (Ib.
293.) Arnaud MagDon, No. 3i2, 10.
294,) Catharine Gonzales Bertrand,
No. 800, (Ib,) Peter Urtubuise, No.
$50, (Ib.) John j. Cheese, No. 372,
Q6.) were, with many other similar
claims, reported TO the House on the
9th of January, 1912, remained uncon-
firmed till the 2nd of June, 1858, and
were confirmed by the second section
of the act of that date.
This section was, by joint resolu-
ton of Congress of the Sd of March,
1859, suspended and was finally re-
| pealcd by the first section of the act
of the 2Ist of June, 1860. The second
section of the latter act declares
The Congress hereby refuses to confirm to
the claimants under the Houmas grant the
land embraced in certificates number one
! hundred and twenty-five to William Con-
way. number one hundred and twenty-seyen
to Daniel Clark and number one hundred
and thirty-three to Donaldson and Scott
BY another act passed on the same
day, Congress reenacted the unre-
pealed provisions of the act of the
End of June, 1858.
This attempted legislative cancel
lation of rights which had vested in
claimants under the act of 1858, is as
imperative as the attempted minis
terial cancellations, to be discussed
in future article, of rights which
have vested in preemptors within the
Houmas Claims under the float law of
the 29th of May, 1880, Nv q. s.
Statutes ut Large, 420,) amended by
the act of the 23d of January, 1882,
10. 1867 and revived by the act. of
the 10Th of June, 1884 ; 10. 676) be-
cause, although the tenth section of
the first article of the federal consti
tntion does not include the United
States in the prohibition against the
passage of laws +" impairing the obi
CATION of contracts" yet, it is clear,
under article FIVE Of the amendments
20 the federal constitution, that the
United States can not deprive con-
frmee or vendee Of his property with
out due process of law, and it is
equally clear that Il confirmation, OF
a preemption right after entry, is
property, and that repeating act OF
Congress or a ministerial revocation
of sale is not within the definition
of due process of law. But the re-
pealing act of the 21st of June, 1860,
shows that Congress had not in
tended to confirm the HOumas claims
by the act of 1858, and is therefore
innOrtant And admitting tho Hon
mas claims TO be confirmed by the
act of 1858, the confirmation can not
affect prior conflicting sales or dona-
tions by the United States.
] TO BE CONTINUED.