which it is not denied give that extent to all the grants in the country. Having, after a very considerable accretion had been gained by alluvion to his land, sold a line of lots along the road, which I have described as running within the levee, it was contended that because some of the deeds for these lots used nearly the same expression, face au fleuve, that is fronting To the river, not as in ours, fronting on the river, a similar construction ought to be given to the expressions in both instruments, and the dilemma which the author urges with so much triumph, was, like most of his arguments, worn out before he took it into his service. The answer to this argument was a concise one. It was, that in the cases where these expressions were used in the deeds of the front proprietors, they were not, as in the case of our grant used alone, that they were restricted by a reference to the plan, and that this plan bounded the lots, not by the river, but by a line drawn across their front on the street; and an uncontrovertible text of law was cited to shew, that wherever such a boundary line existed between the land and the river, the proprietor of the lot could not claim the alluvion, for the plain reason, that he was not the proprietor to the water's edge, and that therefore, what was added by the water was not added to his land, but to the land which lay between his front boundary and the river. This explanation the late president of the United States does not like; it is compendious, he says, but not clear; it wants explanation, and, to use his own phrase, he “spreads it open" for examination; he selects one of the deeds, that to Nicholas Gravier. It conveys two parcels of lots, one of thirteen, fronting the river, and another of forty-five, in the rear, by other boundaries, "in conformity to the plan." Then follows a page of reasoning to shew, that the words, in conformity to the plan, do not relate to the thirteen lots in the front, but to the forty-five in the rear; and on what, reader, do you think this reasoning is founded? Would you believe it?-on the omission of a troublesome word. The original is explicit; after describing both parcels of lots, it says, "THE WHOLE (todo) in conformity with the plan; which having been drawn by Don C. L. Trudeau, I have delivered to the purchaser," &c. It must be confessed, that for a man who wanted to shew that the reference to the plan was applicable only to a part of the lots, this expression, "THE WHOLE,"" ALL," was the most embarrassing that could be

devised. What was to be done? Preserve it in the original Spanish, which not one in a thousand of his readers can understand; omit it in the translation, which every body will suppose accurate in so learned a work; and then argue from the omission, that the reference to the plan related to back lots only.* Of some of my reasoning the late president says, "that it is impossible to characterise it respectfully." What shall we say to this specimen of his own?

The whole argument on this head is of a piece. The sale to N. Gravier is selected, as if those to all the other proprietors contained the same expressions; whereas, a very great proportion refer for their front, not to the river, but to the levee; (haciendo frente a la levee de este rio) and among these is the deed to Mr. Poydras, who, in one of his publications, has the effrontery to say, "My deed of conveyance expressly contains these terms, fronting the river, without any reservation."

In several others the batture is expressly granted, and I have purchased from the grantees. I have paid ten thousand seven hundred dollars for parts of it, which were thus sold; and yet this, as well as the other, has been taken as the demesne of the United States. Now Mr. Jefferson (to return him his dilem. ma) either knew that this description, contained in the deed to N. Gravier, was not that used in the others, or he did not know it; if he knew it, he is unpardonable in concealing from the public, to whom he affects to make a candid appeal, so material a difference. If he did not know it, he confesses that he has deprived a citizen of his property, without being acquainted with the nature of his title. He must take one of these consequences, or he must acknowledge that the circumstance is totally immaterial to the issue. If material, the whole evidence ought to have been offered;-if immaterial, no part of it.

I think I may therefore dismiss this first head of justification, and that I may, without flattering myself, believe that I have shewn it both immaterial to the defence of the late president, and destitute of any foundation if material;-I have shewn that none of those front proprietors can be considered as owners of the alluvion, because their deeds refer to the plan, which does not carry them to the river; because very many of them refer not to the river, but to the levee, as their front exposure; and because those

* See Jefferson, p. 7

who have an express conveyance, (except one) have disposed of their right, by sale, to the present claimant; and in all events, if theirs, it ought, as their property, to have been as sacred as if mine.

Having thus secured the rights of the front proprietors, this provident magistrate next takes the co-heirs of John Gravier under his paternal care. He has discovered that John Gravier (in fraud of his brothers and sisters, as he charitably insinuates) procured the property of his deceased brother to be adjudged to him; that this batture was not comprised in the adjudication, and that it therefore remains the property of the heirs.-And what then, sir? Why if this statement be true, J. Gravier as one of the three heirs would have a right to convey his undivided third; but surely it gives none to you to take it away from his grantee or from the co-heirs in France. As however, I know it must give great satisfaction to a mind so feelingly alive to the interest of absentees, to know that they are not dissatisfied with the transaction, I have the pleasure to inform you, that they have ratified their brother's sale of the batture, and that their concerns need no longer occupy your attention. Mr. Jefferson however, when he wrote his book, did not know this circumstance. Let us do him justice and attend to his reasoning from the facts before him. On the death of Bertrand Gravier, an inventory was taken, according to the terms of it, "of all the effects and property of the deceased."-At the time of his death he owned the plantation in question, excepting such lots as had been sold. The plantation therefore as it stood, after deducting the quantity sold, was to be put in the inventory, and it there stands thus: "Item, are placed in the inventory, the lands of this habitation* whose extent cannot be calculated on account of his having sold many lots, but Mr. N. Gravier informs us that its bounds go to the forks of the Bayou."-After the inventory was complete, appraisers were appointed to estimate its value; and in their appraisement the plantation stands thus:

"Item, about thirteen acres of land, at which the habitation is estimated including the garden, of which the most useful part is taken off in the front; the residue consisting of the lowest part which is enclosed in very bad fences, the side being sold to Don J. Navarro, one Percy, and the negro Zamba; a portion of the

• Habitation in the provincial language is synonimous with plantation.

best of which acres with twelve negro cabins, the appraisers estimate at one hundred and ninety dollars the front acre, with all the depth, which makes two thousand four hundred and seventy dollars."

After these preparatory steps follows the adjudication, which

is in these words:

"Having seen the proceedings, and in consideration of the consent of J. P. Guinault, defender of the absent heirs, the effects, real estate, moveables and slaves, wHICH HAVE BEEN INVENTORIED as belonging to the estate of his deceased brother Bertrand Gravier, who died intestate, are adjudged to John Gravier at the price of the estimation."

After this adjudication John Gravier was put in possession (as appears by the record) of all the effects and property belonging to the succession of Bertrand Gravier, according to the inventory.

Now what appears to have been adjudged to John Gravier by these documents? All the estate of his brother which was put into the inventory. What was put in the inventory?-the plantation, deducting the lots which were sold.—If the batture was a part of the plantation of B. Gravier, and if at the time of his death it was not sold, it belonged to John Gravier by the adjudication. But it ought to have been particularly specified in the inventory under penalty of confiscation.-It was just as necessary to insert the cypress-swamp, the wood, the meadow, and the rice field, as the batture; they were all equally parts of the plantation or farm, and though there are more than five hundred battures in the country, yet not in a single instance have any of them been inventoried separately from the farm to which they belong. The remainder of the plantation after deducting the lots sold, being then adjudged to Gravier, he was as much entitled to it under this conveyance, as to any other acre of land which it contained. But whether purchased by John Gravier or not, he had a right to sell his own third, and the co-heirs by their ratification have confirmed the sale for the residue. So that this objection is at rest, and we are now prepared to accompany Mr. Jefferson in his attempt to shew, not that the property belongs to another, but that it does belong to the United States, and that he had a right forcibly to seize it. But we are not so soon to be gratified; more prejudices are to be excited against the in

jured proprietor;-another attempt is to be made, to show that his title is defective, as if changing the party injured would lessen the offence. The title of Mr. Delabigarre, under which I claim a part of the lands, is said to be illegal, and of course, I suppose, void. But if so, does it vest any title in the United States; admitting that he were guilty of champerty, no new title would thereby accrue to them. The parties might be punishable, the deed might perhaps be declared void, but the United States acquire no rights which they had not before. Why then is the subject introduced? Because, in a bad cause, it is easier to address the passions and prejudices of men, than to consult their reason, or convince their understanding;-because it was supposed that the name of Mr. Jefferson would give new currency to the forgotten calumnies of New Orleans; and because some men can never forgive those whom they have injured.

The repetition of this charge might be excused, if it had not before been repeatedly resorted to-if Mr. Jefferson had not seen the refutation, and if he had not the evidence of the falsity of the charge before him.

It is begun by an allegation (page 11), "that for six years after his purchase, J. Gravier never manifested a symptom of ownership until Mr. Livingston's arrival from New-York;" and that then Gravier received his inspirations that the beach (as he chooses to call it) was his; that I tempted him to lend his name to the suit, but really prosecuted it for my own benefit. This charge is made with an air of levity, and a wretched attempt at wit, which could proceed from no one but a man hardened by repeated attacks on his own character, into a total insensibility for that of others. I first gave the idea to Gravier, that the property was his!-yet ten years before my arrival, his brother had, by four several recorded deeds, disposed of different parcels of it; and Mr. Jefferson, who makes the charge, knew this fact. I first stirred up a dormant claim!—yet I did not arrive until the 7th day of February; and in December preceding, a square of five hundred feet was begun to be inclosed with a levée and ditch,* and Mr. Jefferson had evidence of the fact. I first gave Gravier an idea of his claim!—and yet previous to my purchase, he had agreed to sell it to Mr. Clark and Mr.

• See Appendix, No. I'