The Progress., 1892-11-19
CITY COUNCIL AND SILVER LAKE.

CITY COUNCIL AND SILVER LAKE.
SHREVEPORT. La, Nov. II, 1892.
: To the Editor of The Progress:
The City Council at its last session
passed most remarkable ordinance
in reference to the Silver Lake tract
of land, embracing over 1S6 acres
and situated it the corporate limits OF
the city of Shreveport.
This unprecedented ordinance de-
clares that Silver Lake is the prop
erty OF the city OF Shreveport, not
understanding the fact that the patent
. obtained from the State of Louisiana
Z by w. w. Smith has been recog-
j. nized as legal and valid by the judg-
: lnent OF the United States Circuit
( Court. This Judgment is and has
been final for some time, and the de-
lao for appeal has expired.
The Supreme Court of the State,
at its last session in the city of
Shreveport, recognized the Silver
Lake tract as being the property, un-
der just and legal title, of the heirs
OF w. w. Smith, deceased, and or
dered this tract of land to be divided
IN kind, j. g., into blocks, lots, streets
and alleys.
The City Council, in all Of its au-
gust dignity and unlimited power,
passed the remarkable ordinance
above referred TO, declaring that any
person sho should go upon the Silver
Lake property to make a survey, etc,
should be guilty of trespass.
For the first time in the legal his
tory OF Louisiana, city council has
passed an ordinance setting aside and
prohibiting the execution of a judg-
lnent Ut the Supreme Court of the
State. The claim of this council to
the Silver Lake property is no less
remarkable than the passage of this
memorable ordinance by that auto
cratic body.
1t is contended by claimants that
the Silver Lake tract of land was
embodied in the Larkin Edwards res
ervatiOn of GAO acres of land, and
therefore this property belongs to
the city of Shreveport.
This is utterly false. The field
notes of the Larkin Edwards survey
show that not one foot of this prop |
erty is embraced in said reservation. |
If Silver Lake was embraced in |
the Larkin Edwards reservation, it |
then follows that neither the United |
States nor the State of Louisiana |
ever owned this property; yet it is a |
fact that the city of Shreveport is to-
day strenuously endeavoring to OBJ
tain patent from the State for this
property, but Gov. Foster lis con-
fused" and has refused to sign the
patent applied for.
1t is further contended that Silver
Lake, being embraced in the corpo-
rate limits of Shreveport, is not sub
ject to entry by private individuals
under the United States land laws,
but can be claimed only by the city.
The law referred to is correct, but
it must be remembered that the Sill
yer Lake property was not embraced
in the corporate limits of Shreveport
at the time Smith obtained his pat
ant. OF course, it is preposterous to
that city can deprive an
n dividual of vested rights by the ex-
;ension OF it's limits, after those rights
nave been acquired. ID
Private citizens must resort to I
courts Of Justice, when titles to prop G
srty are in dispute. but the City {
without the intervening
courts, has declared, in its imperial i
authority, that w. w. Smith is no
onger the proprietor of property ac-
Iuired under q legal and binding
,atent from the sovereign State Of
louisiana. JUSTICE.