The Donaldsonville chief. [volume] (Donaldsonville, La.) 1871-current, 1886-03-06
STATEMENT -oF MR.. HAHN,s BILL

In such cases, should the bill become law
the vendee may sue the Government for the
reyoca ton of the contract Of sale and the
recovery of the price. Interest upon tho
price may be sued for, if the purchaser haa
not been the recipient Of revenue from the
property in the meantime. The expenses
of defending the title given by the gov
eminent may be included in the action
But the ordinary burdens Of property hold
ing, such as tax paying, are not to be reim-
burssd for the time rentals we're received
by the purchaser. This accords with the
we'll settled rule of law on the subject. In
deed, there is no novelty in this part of the
bill, unless it be the putting of the United
States in the same boat with ordinary sell
ers of real estate.
The care taken by the author of the bill
to guard against the payment of interest,
etc., during periods when private contract
ing parties could not recover it under SINH
lar circumstances, shows that this act was
not framed to serve the purposes Of any par
ticular class, but to do justice to all con
cerned.
The suit is to rescind the contract for
want of consideration, and to recover the
price paid. 1t is confined to contracts OF
sale of real estate, and to titles ostensibly in
fee. It is confined to sales in which the
government as party of the first part, and
as owner of the land forming the subject of
the contract, sells in that capacity. 1t has
no reference to sales in which the United
States, AS Judgment creditor, causes the
sales of defendants property under exc
cution.
The institution Of the suit is to be fol-
lowed by " due proof y that the title given
to the purchaser was to himself, heirs and
assigns forever; and the plaintiff must
prove that he paid for that character of title,
which, of course, the deeds Themselves Il
show. He will have to make out his case.
in all respects, as in any other litigation.
Thus it is seen that this bill merely rele-
gates to the courts the questions that would
otherwise come before Congress in the
form of private memorials, from time to
alLlcs llhAlAAAS w A0vO JOSbhAo NOi& $AO RS-
titioners by private bills.
1t seems altogether better that this mat
ter should be relegated to the courts Judi
cial questions are involved; the legality Of
the contract and the subject of Its violation
or fulfIment are proper topics for the
bench 1t is better that the !" due proof"
required should be adduced before tribu-
nal accustomed to weigh evidence than be-
fore the. Committee on Land Claims, or
any other Congressional committee.
And if the proof should be made in any
court, the local one seems preferable. The
records and the evidence are there. The
bill looks to this, and gives Jurisdiction to
Federal courts where the Land is situated.
The authorization of suit is therefore
only the RELOCATION of it's subject from Con-
gress to the local Federal courts. The JUS
tice of the suit wilt there be judicially deter
mined: the only question before Congress
is the justice and ACCESSIBILITY of the re,ega-
ton. If any citizen has paid his money
and got not the thing he paid for, he should
have his chance Of redress: the question is
whether that opportunity should be before q
legal tribunal, or before a committee of
Congress and the body at large.
| The second section of the bill provides
that when the government shall regain
pos session Of lands returned because of the
| revocation of the contract, OF sale, they
| shall be restored to the original owners if
previously confscated as enemy property
| In other words, if real estate has been con-
| fscated and sold, but the sale revoked IN
der this bill and the property comes back
to the United States, they shall surrender
the possession to those from whom it was
originally seized. This is the only move
| feature in the bill, but the novelty il attrib-
utable to the unusual circumstances of the
case. The war is long past; the idea OF
! supporting the army b, confscation has
been long abandoned; the exposition of the
confscation LEGISLATION by the Supreme
/ Court gives the property eventually to the
heirs of the former owners: why not let
them come now into possession as the trus-
j tees of their children in lieu of the govern
inent, with such title as the United States
| are competent to give, under the rulings CT
! that court?
So far as the purchasers are concerned,
the bill giyes them nothing but their day in
court to get back their own money upon
due proof and by judicial Decree. So far as
the former proprietors are concerned, the
bin gives them possession with just such at
titude towards their prospective heirs, as
the government would otherwise hold az
cording to the rulings governing the case.
So far as that other interested party, the
seller of the bad title, is concerned, the bill
merely requires Justice as it may be judi
cially found. If the United States have the
money of The meanest citizen, tramp, seal.
awag or even confiscated- property buyer
for which it has not given q,.id pro quo &C
cording to contract, the bill allows the poo
creature to sue for his rights and prove up
his case, and that is all. The Great Rerub
lie can little afford to keep the money
wrongfully, if after judicial investigation
the keeping of ii be found wrongful.
If corporations have no souls; if Thu
great nation has no conscience; if one can
not appeal to the government for Justice a
to H private citizen, there is so much the
greater re ason why Congress should pro
vide q systematic method of settling tn
rights existing between sovereign aud citi
zen.
/