Laurence Richard Kenny to Stephen F Austin, 09-06-1825
Summary: Concerning deed which Austin is witholding.
San felipe de Austin
Sir
Your letter I have recd and it appears from it that Mr Coles
declines to comply with the requisition to him in my letter of paper as you
are pleased to term it—Sir yr idea of duty and mine are very
different—
As to the mistake you speak of in the Deed you have adopted a singular way of rectifying it, by stifling the Instrument in toto
"—You say independent of this mistake and admitting there was none that David Richmond was not such a person as the law recognized as a suitable Character to be received as a settler that he was a drunken vagabond in the full extent of the expression and was not such a person as you could feel justified in returning to the Government as a settler and for that reason and many others of still greater weight you are entirely justifiable in never recognizing him as a settler at all " But Sir why did you recognize him—why did you grant Land to this drunken vagabond—why did you not discover all this prior to such grant—And you now must punish the transgressions of the unfortunate mans life by throwing obliquy on his memory, as it were passing a post humus judgement on him for his sins by depriving his heir of her just bequest—this is an erroneous principle to punish a mans errors by a confiscation (for this process is nothing else) of his property after his death
As to the Comments in yours on my course in this business it merits
not the epithet of violent which you are pleased to bestow upon it—
It has not been violent— I have demanded my right— I have done
it firmly and whether ill calculated or not to obtain the result of my
wishes It is a course I can perfectly reconcile to my conscience and
I fear not the result—but be that result what it may I never shall
suffer my rights or those of others entrusted to my charge to be
trampled on by any man or combinatn of men— It still is my wish
that this affair should be settled as it ought by an imediate
restoration of the deed in question, but I cannot see any benefit to arise from
a personal Communication with you on the subject untill the Deed
is restored—The existence of it is a notorious fact it can be proven by
those who have read and were capable of knowing its contents and
who can testify on oath as to the same—I shall expect a final answer
in the course of