The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States, Seventeenth Congress, First Session, [Volume 1] Page: 201
[621] p.View a full description of this book.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
201
HISTORY OF CONGRESS.
202
February, 1822.
Maison Rouge's Claim.
SfiNisfBi
The bill was ordered to a third reading ; and,
on motion of Mr. Pleasants, the. bill was forth-
with read a third time, b)5. general consent, passed,
and returned to the other House.
On motion by Mr. Lowrie, the Senate resumed,
as in Committee of the Whole, the consideration
of the bill entitled "An act for the apportionment
of Representatives among the several States, ac-
cording to the fourth censusand the further con-
sideration thereof was postponed to and made the
order of the day for to-morrow.
Mr. Dickerson, from the Committee on Com-
merce and Manufactures, to whom was referred
the resolution directing the classification and print-
ing of the accounts of the several manufacturing
establishments and their manufactures, collected
in obedience to the tenth section of the act to pro-
vide for taking the fourth census, reported the
same without amendment.
MAISON ROUGE'S CLAIM.
The Senate then again proceeded to the con-
sideration of the bill confirming the title of the
Marquis de Maison Rouge—the motion made on
yesterday by Mr. Talbot to refer this and all simi-
lar claims to the adjudication of the judiciary be-
ing the question pending.
Mr. Van Dyke, thinking that each of these
large cases ought to stand on its own merits, as it
comes before Congress, moved to amend the mo-
tion so as to refer the claim of Maison Rouge
alone to the decision of the courts.
Mr. Eaton supported the amendment, deem-
ing it inexpedient to refer the other great claims
now pending, on which there was less difficulty
than in the present claim.
Mn Johnson, of Louisiana, thought the whole
of those claims (so many years pending) should
be brought immediately before the judiciary, where
they must ultimately be brought, as they could
never be finally adjudicated in any other way,
and in such manner as would insure an early de-
cision, as it was all-important to the claimants, to
the United States, and, more than all, to the State
of Louisiana, so large a portion of which was
covered by the claims, and its prosperity so much
affected by delay, that they should be speedily ad-
justed and finally settled—accompanying his re-
marks with a brief history of the proceedings on
the prominent claims—and avowing: also his belief
in> the justness of the present claim.
Mr. Barton was averse to the reference of this
special case to the judiciary, but would prefer a
general act referring all such to that tribunal ; and
he offered a few remarks to show the superiority
of that mode of adjusting such titles over a settle-
ment by the Legislature.
Mr. Otis was in favor of the amendment, but
if not agreed to, he should still vote for the gene-
ralproposition, considering it highly proper that a
tribunal should be provided by which these rights
may be decided correctly and finally; and depre-
cating a decision of them and this claim in par-
ticular by Congress.
Mr. Holmes, of Maine, could perceive no rea-
son for referring this claim to the Judiciary;
any more than the various other claims which
are presented to Congress, pecuniary as well as
others; .and endeavored to show that, if Congress
could not trust themselves to decide these claims
for land, it would be much more dangerous- to the
public interest to submit them to a jury or-a tri-
bunal of the vicinity in which the claimant re-
sides. He also went considerably into the merits
of this claim to show its illegality, and that it
was not entitled to the preference proposed;
Mr. Brown, of Louisiana, replied to the latter
part of the preceding remarks, and vindicated his
former arguments in support of the genuineness
and validity of the title of Maison Rouge. •
Mr. Talbot also replied to Mr. Holmes, and
enforced the expediency of the course he had pro-
posed; supported the superiority of courts and'
juries to examine and determine such claims ; that
all claims were worthy of it; that it was the most
prompt and most cheap, if not the most enlight-
ened mode of adjudication; that even if Congress
were properly constituted for such decisionsj there
was no hope of a final decision here—some of
these claims having been prosecuted before Con-
gress twelve or fifteen years—one of which (Win-
ter's) turned on the construction of a single word,
wherein there was no shadow of doubt as to the
genuineness of the claim—and in following it up
to obtain a decision, the original claimant died
here in penury. He had no particular objection
to the amendment, if it was thought best, though,
he had no doubt a general provision would hare,
of necessity, to be passed before long.
Mr. Holmes, of Maine, contended, that for all
those purposes, Congress was a court of justice,
and an impartial court of justice ; that it was as
capable and as willing to do justice as any jury ;
that Congress was not a party, but the umpire
between a petitioner and the people, though: he
professed the highest veneration for the institution
of the trial by jury.
Mr. Johnson, of Louisiana, replied that,; ad-
mitting Congress to be a competent and impartial
tribunal, still their decision could not be final, as
it could not divest a right, nor the individuals be
deprived of a judicial trial; so that, after wasting
years on them, the individuals could resort to the
courts; and it was expedient at once to refer these
claims to the ultimate tribunal; concluding with
some remarks on the claim of Maison Rouge,
which he believed, after a particular examination
of the title, to be legal and complete.
Mr. Macon thought it was immaterial how this
question was decided, as the special law would
soon bring on a general one. As to the blame of
delay^ the delay in deciding cases arose often front
the friends of petitioners, and there was just as
much delay in the courts of justice as here; the
law's delay had become a toast. He did not like,
this unjust blame of Congress. Pass the bill, and
it would be for the rich only—for the poor could
not afford to go to law, much less to follow up a
suit to the Supreme Court. The talk. for. somtS
time had been, that the Court had more business
than it could perform; and it now was proposed.'
to take business belonging properly to the Leg is-
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This book can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Book.
Gales and Seaton. The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States, Seventeenth Congress, First Session, [Volume 1], book, 1855; Washington D.C.. (https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc30365/m1/99/: accessed April 25, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, UNT Digital Library, https://digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.