view to render him odious to the publick and to the government. He has been styled a disturber of the publick peace.* It has been surmised that he had acquired his title to the Batture by an unlawful combination with John Gravier, that he had disbursed no money for it, and had bound himself to pay the sum agreed upon only in case his claim should succeed. These assertions Mr. Livingston peremptorily denies and declares to be false and calumnious. He has published a full answer to them in the Orleans Gazette, of which I have extracted the most material part, and annexed it to this publication; in order that he may be heard himself in his own defence, and put down his adversaries by a plain tale.†

APPENDIX.

No. I.

Deliberation of the City council of New Orleans, in their session of the 19th of October, 1808.

HAVING considered the manuscript addressed to the city council by Mr. Thierry, entitled: Examination of the rights of the United States, and of the pretensions of Edward Livingston, Esq. to the Batture in front of the suburb St. Mary, the council has resolved uanimously that the said memoire or examination, with the documents thereto annexed, be printed in English and French to the amount of five hundred copies, at the expense of the city, to be transmitted to his excellency the President of the United States, and to the members of Congress, and to be distributed to the officers civil and military of this territory.

M. BOURGEOIS, Secretary to the council.

No. II.

Translated from the Moniteur de la Louisiane, 18th Nov. 1808.

I have read with a great deal of interest the memoire of Mr. Thierry, on the rights of the United States to the Batture of the suburb St. Mary, and I give, with pleasure, this publick testimony of the satisfaction which it affords me, although he has spoken in it, rather with too much levity of the opinion which gave last year, on the subject of that controversy. But I cannot help regretting that he has dared to put aside, in six lines, several of the principal arguments, which, whatever he may say, may be used against Mr. Gravier with the greatest success.

I

A little more regard for the opinion of those who had settled those arguments, on mature consideration, aided by some degree of professional knowledge, would have made him avoid that excess of confidence in his own strength, the consequences of which would be unfortunate, if he were a lawyer by profession.

The question of publick law, the only resource which M. Thierry has reserved to himself, does undoubtedly afford a powerful ground of argument, which he has discussed in a manner which does him honour. It is unfortunate, that after having laid it on a very good foundation, he has himself laboured to destroy his own work, by admitting that the Graviers and those under whom they claim, "have constantly enjoyed the right of taking possession successively of those portions of Batture, which the consolidation of the soil permitted them to annex to their property." If that were true, no resource would remain against Mr. Gravier, but to prove that at the time of the establishment of the suburb, there was no portion of the Batture sufficiently consolidated to be susceptible of being thus incorporated with their estate; but the contrary has been ascertained, and it is probable that it may still be proved. In this manner, the rights of the United States, instead of resting on several solid grounds, would have but a very precarious existence, which would depend on the more or less correct understanding of a nice definition.

I hope very soon to prove, that the United States are owners of the Batture, by more than one title, and I have the confidence

to believe, that the vain boasting with which Mr. Livingston's writings are replete, will be covered with the ridicule that it deP. DERBIGNY.

serves.

MR. THIERRY'S REPLY.

Translated from the Courier de la Louisiane of the 21st November, 1808.

Mr. Derbigny has greeted the memoire which I have just published concerning the Batture cause, with observations which place me in a rather embarrassing alternative.

On the one hand, not to refute Mr. Derbigny's assertions would be in some measure to acknowledge that they are correct and well founded; on the other hand, it would be a violation of every rule of propriety, were I to enter into a discussion, which could not but be highly flattering to our adversaries; although, in reality, it could not impair the justice and goodness of the cause which we have undertaken to defend.

I must then content myself with observing to Mr. Derbigny, that he is unpardonable for having mutilated the only quotation which he has extrated from that memoire, by making me say, page 36, that the Graviers and those under whom they claim, "had constantly enjoyed the right of taking possession successively of the portions of the Batture which the consolidation of the soil permitted them to annex to their property," and to convince him of his want of exactness, I dare hope, that he will not take it ill, that I request him to read a little more attentively the page which he has quoted. THIERRY.

No. III.

Translation of a certificate of Mr. Lafon, deputy surveyor general for the county of Orleans.

I, the subscriber, certify that the portion of land outside of the levee, commonly called Batture, situate between the suburb

St. Mary and the place where ships lie; which Batture fronts the fort St. Louis, and is possessed by the town of New Orleans, contains two thousand superficial toises, which may be dug to the depth of four feet before coming to the level of the low water; that this portion increases every year by the alluvion of the river, and that the earth which may be taken out of it in the course of one year is always replaced by the deposit of the river in the next.

I am also of opinion, that this parcel of Batture together with that of Bernard Marigny, now the property of the city, and that which lies opposite fort St. Charles, can furnish a sufficient quantity of earth for the present use of the city.

New Orleans, 20th September, 1808.

LAFON.

Ordinance of the City Council of New Orleans.

On the repeated complaints of many citizens, that they are obliged to buy the earth necessary for building and filling up their yards, and for constructing their banquettes, and that a great number of them have not even the means adequate to this disbursement: the city council considering that it is incumbent on them to bring some relief to the painful situation of the inhabitants of the city in this occurrence :

Resolve, That notwithstanding the works already commenced by the corporation, and the momentaneous detriment by which the interests of the city, and part of the commerce shall be affected, the mayor is provisionally authorized to cause that the earth from the Batture opposite fort St Louis, be delivered gratis to all proprietors of lots and houses in town and the fauxbourg St. Mary, who may be able to prove the indispensable necessity of this relief.

(Signed)

CHARLES TRUDEAU, President.

Approved, 15th October, 1807.

JAMES MATHER, Mayor.
(Certified.)

M. BOURGEOIS, City Clerk.

No. IV.

We the subscribers, captains of vessels now lying in the port of New Orleans, do certify, that we have examined the canal constructed and nearly completed, by Edward Livingston, Esq. on the Batture of the suburb St. Mary, and we are of opinion, that the said canal when completed will be of the greatest use to commerce, by affording a convenient birth for ships and other vessels, and that similar canals, constructed along the whole front of the said suburb, particularly when stores shall be erected on the sides, will greatly facilitate the lading and unlading of vessels without the expense of cartage. And we are further of opinion, from examining the current of the river at high water, that the said canals will not render the current more rapid, or the harhour more inconvenient or less secure, but on the contrary will afford both convenience and safety to the shipping.

(Signed by a number of masters of vessels.)

No. V.

Extract from a publication of Edward Livingston, Esq., inserted in the Orleans Gazette of November 16, 1807.

My interest in the prosecution is next seized on as a proof that I bargained for the possession of a doubtful title. Let facts answer this charge. On my arrival, John Gravier was in possession; the property was offered for sale; several lots as I have before shown, had been disposed of long before. And prior to my becoming interested, Mr. Daniel Clark, and Mr. Benjamin Morgan, the latter then a judge of the city court, now, or late, a member of the city council, had agreed for the purchase of the same quantity which I afterwards bought, at the same price.— Mr. Clark's leaving the city and nèglecting to give directions for the payment, was, as he has since informed me, the only reason why the bargain was not completed.

"The known judgment and prudence of these gentlemenparticularly Mr. Morgan, who lived in the suburb and must have