Imatges de pàgina
PDF
EPUB

1st Session.

JAMES H. PECK.

APRIL 29, 1830.

Read, and laid upon the table.

MR. BUCHANAN, from the committee to which the subject had been referred, exhibited to the House the following article of impeachment against James H. Peck, Judge of the District Court of the United States for the District of Missouri.

Article exhibited by the House of Representatives of the United States, in the name of themselves, and of all the people of the United States, against James H. Peck, Judge of the District Court of the United States for the District of Missouri, in maintenance and support of their impeachment against him for high misdemeanors in office.

ARTICLE.

That the said James H. Peck, Judge of the District Court of the United States for the District of Missouri, at a term of the said court, hoiden at St. Louis, in the State of Missouri, on the fourth Monday in December, one thousand eight hundred and twenty-five, did, under and by virtue of the power and authority vested in the said court, by the act of the Congress of the United States, entitled "An act enabling the claimants to lands within the limits of the State of Missouri and Territory of Arkansas to institute proceedings to try the validity of their claims," approved on the twentysixth day of May, one thousand eight hundred and twenty-four, render a final decree of the said court in favor of the United States, and against the validity of the claim of the petitioners, in a certain matter or cause depending in the said court, under the said act, and before that time prosecuted in the said court before the said Judge, by Julie Soulard, widow of Antoine Soulard, and James G. Soulard, Henry G. Soulard, Eliza Soulard, and Benjamin A. Soulard, children and heirs at law of the said Antoine Soulard, petitioners against the United States, praying for the confirmation of their claim, under the said act, to certain lands situated in the said State of Missouri; and the said court did thereafter, on the thirtieth day of December, in the said year, adjourn to sit again on the third Monday in April, one thousand eight hundred and twenty-six.

And the said petitioners did, and at the same December term of the said court, holden by and before the said James H. Peck, Judge as aforesaid, in due form of law, under the said act, appeal against the United States, from the judgment and decree so made and entered in the said matter, to the Supreme Court of the United States; of which appeal so made and taken in the said District Court, the said James H. Peck, Judge of the said court, had then and there full notice. And the said James H. Peck, after the said

matter or cause had so been duly appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States, and on or about the thirtieth day of March, one thousand eight hundred and twenty-six, did cause to be published in a certain public newspaper, printed at the city of St. Louis, called "The Missouri Republican," a certain communication prepared by the said James H. Peck, purporting to be the opinion of the said James H. Peck, as Judge of the said court, in the matter or cause aforesaid, and purporting to set forth the reasons of the said James H. Peck, as such Judge, for the said decree; and that Luke Edward Lawless, a citizen of the United States, and an attorney and counsellor at law, in the said District Court, and who had been of counsel for the petitioners in the said court in the matter aforesaid, did, thereafter, and on or about the eighth day of April, one thousand eight hundred and twenty six, cause to be published in a certain other newspaper, printed at the city of St. Louis, called "The Missouri Advocate and St. Louis Enquirer," a certain article signed "A Citizen," and purporting to contain an exposition of certain errors of doctrine and fact alleged to be contained in the opinion of the said James H. Peck, as before that time so published; which publication by the said Luke Edward Lawless, was to the effect following,

viz:

"To the Editor:

SIR: I have read, with the attention which the subject deserves, the opinion of Judge Peck, on the claim of the widow and heirs of Antoine Soulard, published in the Republican of the 30th ultimo. I observe that, although the judge has thought proper to decide against the claim, he leaves the grounds of his decree open for further discussion.

Availing myself, therefore, of this permission, and considering the opinion so published, to be a fair subject of examination to every citizen who feels himself interested in, or aggrieved by, its operation, I beg leave to point the attention of the public to some of the principal errors which I think that I have discovered in it. In doing so, I shall confine myself to little more than an enumeration of those errors, without entering into any demonstration or developed reasoning on the subject. This would require more space than a newspaper allows, and besides, is not (as regards most of the points) absolutely necessary.

Judge Peck, in this opinion, seems to me to have erred in the following assumptions, as well of fact as of doctrine:

1st That, by the ordinance 1754, a sub-delegate was prohibited from making a grant in consideration of services rendered or to be rendered.

2d. That a sub-delegate in Louisiana was not a sub-delegate as contemplated by the above ordinance.

3d. That O'Reily's regulations, made in February, 1770, can be considered as demonstrative of the extent of the granting power of either the Governor General or the sub-delegates under the royal order of August, 1770. 4th. That the royal order of August, 1770, as recited or referred to in the preamble to the regulations of Morales, of July, 1799) related exclusively to the Governor General.

5th. That the word "mercedes" in the ordinance of 1754, which in the Spanish language means "gifts," can be narrowed by any thing in that ordinance or in any other law, to the idea of a grant to an Indian, or a reward to an informer, and much less to a mere sale for money.

6th. That O'Reily's regulations were in their terms applicable, or ever were in fact applied to, or published in, Upper Louisiana.

7th. That the regulations of O'Reily have any bearing on the grant to Antoine Soulard, or that such a grant was contemplated by them.

8th. That the limitation to a square league, of grants to new settlers in Opelousas, Attakapas, and Natchitoches, (in 8th article of O'Reily's regulations) prohibits a larger grant in Upper Louisiana.

9th. That the regulations of the Governor General, Gayoso, dated 9th September, 1797, entitled "Instructions to be observed for the admission of new settlers," prohibit, in future, a grant for services, or have the effect of annulling that to Antoine Soulard, which was made in 1796, and not located or surveyed until Feb. 1804.

10th. That the complete titles made by Gayoso are not to be referred to as affording the construction made by Gayoso himself of his own regula

tions.

11th. That, although the regulations of Morales were not promulgated as law in Upper Louisiana, the grantee in the principal case was bound by them, inasmuch as he had notice, or must be presumed, "from the official station which he held," to have had notice of their terms.

12th. That the regulations of Morales "exclude all belief, that any law existed under which a confirmation of the title in question could have been claimed."

13th. That the complete titles, (produced to the court) made by the Governor General or the Intendant General, though based on incomplete titles not conformable to the regulations of O'Reily, Gayoso, or Morales, afford no inference in favor of the power of the Lieut. Governor, from whom these incomplete titles emanated, and must be considered as anomalous exercises of power in favor of individual grantees.

14th. That the language of Morales himself, in the complete titles issued by him, on concessions made by the Lieutenant Governor of Upper Louisiana, anterior to the date of his regulations, ought not to be referred to as furnishing the construction which he, Morales, put on his own regulations.

15th. That the uniform practice of the sub-delegates or Lieutenant-Governor of Upper Louisiana, from the first establishment of that province, to the 10th March, 1804, is to be disregarded as proof of law, usage, or custom, therein.

16th. That the historical fact, that nineteen-twentieths of the titles to lands in Upper Louisiana were not only incomplete, but not conformable to the regulations of O'Reily, Gayoso, or Morales, at the date of the cession to the United States, affords no inference in favor of the general legality of those titles.

17th. That the fact, that incomplete concessions, whether floating or located, were, previous to the cession, treated and considered by the government and population of Louisiana as property, saleable, transferable, and the subject of inheritance and distribution ab intestato, furnishes no inference in favor of those titles, or to their claim to the protection of the treaty of cession or of the law of nations.

18th. That the laws of Congress heretofore passed in favor of incomplete titles, furnish no argument or protecting principle in favor of those titles of a precisely similar character, which remain unconfirmed.

In addition to the above, a number of other errors, consequential on those indicated, might be stated. The Judge's ductrine as to the forfeiture, which he contends is inflicted by Morales' regulations, seems to me to be peculiarI shall, however, not tire the ly pregnant with grievous consequences. reader with any further enumeration, and shall detain him only to observe,

[ocr errors]

by way of conclusion, that the judge's recollection of the argument counsel for the petitioner, as delivered at the bar, differs materially what I can remember, who also heard it. In justice to the counsel, Il observe, that all that I have now submitted to the public, has been sugg by that argument as spoken, and by the printed report of it, which is now before me.

A CITIZEN

And the said James H. Peck, Judge as aforesaid, unmindful of the sol duties of his station, and that he held the same, by the Constitution of United States, during good behavior only, with intention wrongfully unjustly to oppress, imprison, and otherwise injure the said Luke E Lawless, under color of law, did, thereafter, at a term of the said Distr Court of the United States for the District of Missouri, begun and held the City of St. Louis, in the State of Missouri, on the third Monday April, one thousand eight hundred and twenty-six, arbitrarily, oppressi ly, and unjustly, and under the further color and pretence that the said Lu Edward Lawless was answerable to the said Court for the said publicatio signed "A Citizen," as for a contempt thereof, institute, in the said Cou before him, the said James H. Peck, Judge as aforesaid, certain proceedin against the said Luke Edward Lawless, in a summary way, by attachmen issued for that purpose by the order of the said James H. Peck, as su Judge, against the person of the said Luke Edward Lawless, touching th said pretended contempt, under and by virtue of which said attachment th said Luke Edward Lawless was, on the twenty-first day of April, one tho sand eight hundred and twenty-six, arrested, imprisoned, and brought int the said Court, before the said Judge, in the custody of the Marshal of the said State; and the said James H. Peck, Judge as aforesaid, did, afterwards on the same day, under the color and pretences aforesaid, and with the in tent aforesaid, in the said Court, then and there unjustly, oppressively, and arbitrarily, order and adjudge that the said Luke Edward Lawless, for the cause aforesaid, should be committed to prison for the period of twentyfour hours, and that he should be suspended from practising as an attorney or counsellor at law in the said District Court for the period of eighteen ca lendar months from that day; and did then and there further cause the said unjust and oppressive sentence to be carried into execution; and the said Luke Edward Lawless was, under color of the said sentence, and by the order of the said James H. Peck, Judge as aforesaid, thereupon suspended from practising as such attorney or counsellor in the said Court for the period aforesaid, and immediately committed to the common prison in the said city of St. Louis; to the great disparagement of public justice, the abuse of judicial authority, and to the subversion of the liberties of the People of the United States.

And the House of Representatives, by protestation, saving to themselves the liberty of exhibiting, at any time hereafter, any further articles, or other accusation or impeachment, against the said James H. Peck, and also of replying to his answers which he shall make unto the article herein preferred against him, and of offering proof to the same, and every part thereof, and to all and every other articles, accusation, or impeachment, which shall be exhibited by them as the case shall require, do demand that the said James H. Peck may be put to answer the misdemeanors herein charged against him, and that such proceedings, examinations, trials, and judgments, may be thereupon had and given, as may be agreeable to law and justice.

ARIEL ENSIGN.

APRIL 29, 1830.

Ir. CRANE, from the Committee of Claims, to which was referred the case of Ariel Ensign, made the following

REPORT:

The Committee of Claims, to whom was referred the petition of Ariel Ensign, report:

The petitioner asks for compensation for valuable and lasting improve nents made by him on a lot belonging to the United States, in the city of Hartford, Connecticut. H. Huntington, the former District Attorney for the district of Connecticut, testifies, this lot, called No. 6, or Distillery lot, in April, 1818, was appraised at $757, and taken in part satisfaction of a judgment rendered in favor of the United States against Robert Bowne. That this and other lots, appraised and taken at the same time, were appraised far above their true value in money. There was a dwelling house on this lot, erected and occupied by different proprietors about twenty years before, taken and set off on the execution against Bowne. In the year 1826, the petitioner purchased this house, which stands on the Southwest corner of the lot on Front street, where he and his family have since resided. That The permitted the petitioner to occupy, at the annual rent of $5, the residue of the lot, most of the North part of which, and the East adjoining the creek, was merely a heap of rubbish, broken brick, and small stone, the bottom of a large brick building occupied as a distillery. That he proposed to pay the rent by making permanent improvements on the lot, to which proposition the latter agreed. He dug up and removed all the stone and broken brick on the N. E. part of the lot, with which he formed an embankment wall on the East line of the lot, and raised it above the ordinary rise of water. When the petitioner purchased the house and the lot to the commons, Mr. Huntington furnished the necessary posts, rails, and boards, to fence the lot, and the petitioner erected a firm and durable fence; he also erected a small barn or shed, an ice house, dug a well, which furnished a never failing fountain of water, set out fruit trees, and, instead of a heap of rubbish, the bottom of the old distillery building, the lot was converted into a highly cultivated garden. That the petitioner also aided in inducing the city authorities, with his assistance, to make a stone side walk adjoining the front line of the lot, That the and also assisted in raising Front street where it passes the lot. value of the lot was considerably enhanced by these improvements; and, in the opinion of Mr. Huntington, it brought, when sold in 1829 by order of the agent of the Treasury, at least $200 more in consequence of the improve

« AnteriorContinua »