Year 1804. Mr. James Freret complains of the conduct observed towards him by the Governor of Louisiana. Year 1805. Examinations of the archives and libraries in quest of papers relative to boundaries. Year 1805. Notes from Mr. Monroe and Mr. Pinckney to Don Pedro Cevallos relative to boundaries of Louisiana. Year 1805. Topographical maps of Louisiana. Year 1806. Report from the commercial firm of Panton, Leslie and Company. Year 1808. Report about restitution to the United States of fugitive slaves of Louisiana. Year 1808. About the want of right of the American Governor of Louisiana to embark at New Orleans any portion of the ships' stores belonging to the Royal House of Spain. Year 1808. Services which Juan Francisco Mericult rendered in Louisiana; and the grave injustices and losses he suffered. Year 1811. Report preventing the French Consul at New Orleans from embarking lumber and ships (stores belonging to the King,) on Board the "San Francisco de Borja." Year 1812. The Captain general of Florida, gives cognizance, with accompanying copies, of differences that he has arbitrated between the governor of Louisiana and the commandant of the West. Year 1812. Differences between the Commandant of Pensacola and the Governor of New Orleans relative to the inquiry about the American designs for the conquest of part of that territory. Year 1812. Information sent by the commandant of Florida relative to acquisition by the State of Louisiana of the territory and District of Baton Rogue. Year 1813. Deliberation about accepting the propositions of the United States government to evacuate the Floridas and part of Louisiana, and the territory which they usurped for the purpose of aiding the rebels of America. Year 1814. Plan of Louis Colouet with regard to retaking Louisiana by force. Year 1814. Plans of the negotiations necessary to obtain the restitution of Louisiana and the return of lands usurped by the United States. Years 1823-1830. Claims of the American Minister, relative to lands in Louisiana and Florida. Year 1829. Petition of James Foster, relative to lands he owns in Louisiana and the Floridas. Year 1829. Various events and demonstrations on the arrival of the troops of his majesty in New Orleans. Year 1830. The American Minister requests the favor of being permitted to consult certain documents concerning donations and sales of lands in Louisiana. Year 1832. His Majesty's minister in the United States informs that the United States Government has requested the Congress to pass a law confirming the concessions of lands, made by the King, in Louisiana. Year 1832. Investigation of the funds which the late Juan Brid left in New Orleans. Year 1833. List of the Governors of Louisiana from the year 1769 to the year 1800. WITHOUT DATE. An anonymous memorial (in French) about Louisiana. Memoire historique et politique sur la Louisiane, par Mr. De Senlis. HOW TO BUILD THE CHALMETTE MONUMENT. By ALFRED F. THEARD, Civil Engineer. A Paper read before the Society April 13, 1907. Mr. President, Ladies and Gentlemen: A little over a year ago, at the request of one of my personal friends and of the ladies who form the membership of the United States Daughters of 1776 and 1812, I made a personal investigation of the then existing conditions at the Chalmette Monument. I studied closely the conditions under which the work had been planned and partly executed, and thereafter submitted a written report covering the result of my investigation and making some suggestions as to the continuance of the work. These suggestions were submitted to and approved by these ladies. I never even suspected at the time that I was about to put myself in a peck of trouble. What I had done was done because of my sympathy with those who were striving to make this monument a fitting tribute to the memory of the heroes of 1815, and I felt honored to have been called upon to help along this good cause. But not so. The friendship of the gentleman who had spoken to me made him look upon my work as through a magnifying glass, and he so impressed the ladies with the importance of my sug gestions that my report was used as one of the documents to solicit Federal aid and to support the strong case admirably presented to Congress by their Association. And now that the case has been won, that all who have contributed to the victory are congratulating themselves, this same friend came to me and asked that I should appear before you tonight to explain briefly how the Chalmette Monument should be completed. I thank him for the kind opportunity he has given me of meeting you ladies, and of addressing such a distinguished and talented association, but I am afraid that you will be somewhat disappointed after I have completed my part of the program. Indeed, you must have noticed how seldom an engineer is called upon to speak in public. As a rule, you will find the members of the other professions always ready and at times anxious to express their views on all public questions or intricate problems, even when these problems should properly be studied and solved exclusively by the Engi neer. Is this because we are not able to make public speeches, or because the nature of our professional work is, in itself, uninteresting? I think it is because of both reasons. As a rule the Engineer is of a retiring disposition, preferring to carry out his professional work quietly and unostentatiously, both in the field and in the office; and, when the option is given him, he generally prefers to submit a written report than to deliver an address. This is proper, because our work is naturally positive and not conducive to oratorical effect. The second reason why the Engineer is apparently of a retiring disposition is that his work is so technical and mathematical, that it is really uninteresting in a public address. To break the monotomy of these remarks, it would have been perhaps better if lantern slides had presented to you the pictures of the Chalmette Monument as it is, as it was contemplated originally, and as I suggest that it be completed. But the members of the Historical Society are so familiar with the conditions at the monument, that as I give a short description, it can be readily understood by all. Indeed, you all know how the Chalmette Monument was originally designed by Newton Richards; how his plans were adopted by the Jackson Monument Association in May, 1855; and how a contract for the erection of the monument was awarded to Newton Richards and John Stroud and Company in June of the same year. The designs submitted, the original being at present in the notarial archives in this city, covered four distinct plans, numbered from "1" to "4," inclusive, graded in cost and finish from an expensive and elaborate monument nearly two hundred feet in height, to a plain column barely sixty feet high; the one being of proportionate size and finish, with an ornamental capital; the other being devoid of any ornamentation with a bare and simple appearance. The design selected (marked No "2" on the original plan) while less elaborate and expensive than the most costly, was, undoubtedly, in my opinion, the most appropriate and the most beautiful. It consisted of a plain shaft, 142 feet high, resting on five steps, each two feet high, and starting about two feet six inches above the natural surface of the ground; the shaft to be sixteen feet eight inches square at the base, and twelve feet six inches at the top; the base of the shaft on the four faces to have corniced projections surmounted with sculptured emblems; one of these to serve as an entrance to a spiral stairway leading to a chamber at the top; the stair being lighted by small openings at regular intervals; both shaft and base to be faced with marble. The work was partly erected and a careful examination has confirmed me in the belief that what was done was done in accordance with the specifications annexed to the original contract, and with a view of the carrying out of the work as originally contemplated. Indeed, the foundations, as specified, were to consist of a double floor of eight inches lumber laid transversly fifty-four feet square; then a thickness of 20 feet of brick work, fifty-three feet square, diminished by gradual offsets of two feet six inches each, at every two feet above the natural surface, to a square of 22 feet at a point three inches below the marble facing of the shaft. No excavations were made to examine the foundations, but it is evident that they are in very good condition, resting on a fairly good bottom, and amply sufficient to support the monument as it is now or as it is proposed to complete it. The shaft, as it stands today, is 56 feet 10 inches above the line at which the top of the step would meet it; this step or base being, if completed, about 12 feet 6 inches above the natural surface. From the natural level to this point, a mound extends around the base of the monument, with a diameter of about 185 feet. At the foot of the mound is a ditch which drains the entire plot. At the top of the shaft the very crude |