The weekly clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1863-1882, 1878-05-29

SAID that he had given "Brierfield" il
consideration that Jefferson would leave
the army and settle near him because
he loved him son. This witness also
establishes the fact that Joseph E. was,
before the gift, indebted to Jefferson, but
does not fix the amount. It seems i'm.
possible to resist the conclusion from this
testimony that Jefferson Davis held
"Bfierfeld" in his own right, and ac-
/ quired perfect title by Limitation.
Stress is laid by appellees upon the
fact that Joseph E. Davis assisted to
/ build the residence and that it was de-
| signed to give shelter to a widowed sister.
1t IS proven that this arrangement was
proposed because of the fact that
1 Jefferson at the time had no chill
| dren, and was much away from
home. The plan did not originate
with Joseph E., nor was he con-
suited when it was abandoned, at the
mutual instance Of the sister and Mrs.
jefferson Davis. 1t is said that Jeffer-
son should have interviewed in the suit
tor the injunction of taxes against ''Bri-
erfield, and should have asserted his
own title. 1t is impossible to see what
principle sanctions such an idea. The
suit did not involve title; and could be
as well prosecuted by his brother as by
himself. That his brother chose to state
the title as shown by the records,
rather than as it really existed be
tween the brothers could not possibly
affect Jefferson's rights. 1t is urged
with much more force, that it is
incredible that men so intelligent should
have undertaken to convey title by parol
The suggestion loses, perhaps, some of
its strength, from a consideration of the
fact that though Joseph Z. Davis had
entered the land as early as 1872, he
himself obtained no patent for it until
This shows at least great carelessness
and indifference about paper evidences of
title. But apart from this the books
abound with cases of parol gifts of
lands, ripened into perfect titles by occu-
patton; in all of which written convey
ances had, by negligence or otherwise,
failed to be delivered, and we have seen
no case which strikes us as more satisfac
tory upon the facts than this.
If Jefferson Davis had remained poor
and dependent upon his brother, we could,
perhaps, understand willingness on his
part to remain a pensioner upon that
brothers bounty or caprice. But the
record shows that he rose as rapidly in
fortune as in fame While successfully
a Colonel in the Mexican war, member
of Congress, United States Senator, and
Secretary of War, and filling all these
high places with distinguished ability,
his increase in wealth was not less marked.
In 1860 there were largely more than a
hundred slaves on "Brierfield," which,
with other personal property there, must
have been worth hundred thousa Id dol
lars. The annual cotton crop was from
four hundred to four hundred and fifty
bales, worth more than $50, 900 per an
mum. Many years before this he had
been able, at one time, to allow his broth
er the use of $40, 900 of surplus cash
lying in the hands of his commission
merchant The residence at Brierfield
was expensive and fitted up with mar
BILE mantels--a thing unusual in country
houses in this State. The grounds were
adorned with shrubs and trees imported
from foreign lands. That such a man
should have created and lived in such a
home for more than quarter of CEN
fury without claim of right, and wholly
at the mercy of brother with whom de-
spite a mutual affection, unusually de
voted and tender, there was not wanting
more than one period of GOODNESS and
seems to US far more re-
markable than the carelessness which
omitted to have the parol gift evidenced
by deed. We pass to consideration
of the facts occurring after the seizure of
'BrierfeId," by the Federal Govern
mont.
In 1868, both ''Brierfeld" and "Hurri |
cane" were taken possession of by the
officers of the "Freedman's Bureau )"
Jefferson Davis, being at the time in |
Virginia as President of the Confederate
States, and Joseph E., a refugee in Ala
bama. Both plantations remained in
the occupation of the Bureau during
the war. On the Goth of October, 1865,
Jefferson Davis, then confined on a
charge of treason in Fortress Monroe,
wrote a letter to his wife, strongly add
,ising against the return of Joseph E.,
who was still in Alabama, to "the river
place." He says: CAN is changed. He
Joseph will be troubled beyond his
strength by the confusion which must
Exist. An agent will suit the new regime
much better than the old one. If he
roes back, why not take the Brierheld
house. He can claim possession as the
,wner of the land. But my decided con-
riction is, that in the existing condition
# things, neither he nor Lie, (his grand
should stay there"
Why jefferson suggested that Joseph
2. should occupy "Brierfeld" rather
han "Hurricane," does not appear.
Whether he meant by Joseph's claiming
possession of ''Brier6eld" as owner of the
and, that he was entitled to possession,
s owner, against himself, or only that he