New Orleans daily crescent. [volume] ([New Orleans, La.]) 1851-1866, 1854-08-02

legs) Why should it be left for the City Attor-
ney to tell the Council and its Committee these
things And why, when this unexampled Com
nittee was ignorant Of these facts, did it 80 out
ofits way to ask legal questions Of the City At
torney As. the Committee is 80 ready to ask,
perhaps it will answer us.
And did not this Council, with two heads, and
its Committee, we expect without any heads at
all, know that the table President" Of the
Company, prefers to hold the inferior station
of subject to Her Majesty, the Queen Of Great
Britain, rather thBn the independent one of
citizen of the United States9" Should it be left
for the City Attorney to tell the Committee this,
to be promulgated in the official journal long
time afterwards. and cause a great public SEN
sation In short, we are disposed to ask warm
", is there any excuse, and should there be any
Landings, who have to be told what our clever
and wide-awake City Attorney tells them in the
following paragraph And is there any hope
that such q Committee on Streets and Landings
will ever in the wide world resolve the legal
point, concerning which our astute City At
torney is in doubt
The Committee should go still further, and insist that
cars, constructed according to modern notions.
should at be placed upon the road they should be
large and cpmmudous, with we'll cushioned seats, and
properly ventilated and constructed that ingress and
egress could be made without risk to limbs They should
reguue the running of the cars, and that the
great desire the Company to accommodate the public
should be secured aocordi to the notions of the public
not Of the Company II s competent for the Council
to do this, and 1t is its duty
We trust the Council will put this in its pipe,
and sit on its benches like a stupid old Mutt,
and smoke it. If it will not, we can see no use
in having City Attorney, who knows thing
or two, to give it advice.
The great question as to whether &c two rail-
road companies can use the same street Z" is
disposed of in the following lucid paragraph.
The City Attorney cannot solve this question,
which this most incomprehensible Committee on
Streets and Landings forgot to ask him to solve,
and directs that monstrous anomaly with two
bodies and without any soul. to so to the City
Surveyor for its solution. We know lawyers,
| though, thank Heaven, there are not many OF
| them, who would never have thought either Of
the question, Or of this ingenious manner of its
| disposal If the Council has not been to the
City Surveyor, we trust it will put on its two
hats and 60 thither, and that it will not fail to
publish its conversation with that distinguished
referee in the official journal some weeks hence.
| 1t will be sure to cause another sensation.
"But doubt much if the Council grant the re-
quest In 1852 the right to jackson street was
granted to the Lafayette and Pontchartrain Railroad
Company Can tits street be used by two railroad
oanies cannot solve the question Its solution should
he left the City Surveyor and the Council should not
until his report is received If two companies
A. frrsl bio IN
regulating the for it cannot be supposed that
two bodies without souls could in peace and harmony
1 exercise a mutual right
| However, as everybody takes the official jour
nal, and as therefore, every body has read this
able and instructive letter of the City Attorney
| it may not be necessary for US to continue our
commentators. 1t is an extraordinary pro-
duction. For analytic power, we are com
while in respect to its versatility, as well as
acuteness, and its sonorous and perpendicular
sort of dietion, all we have to say is, that
nothing need be said. The very mention of the
| thing is utter supererogation. In conclusion,
for the information Of everybody and especially
of the Council and its Committee, who seem to
be q sort Of abreyiation Of other people, we copy
the following paragraph from the unparalleled
letter of the City Attorney. It is perfect en-
cyclopedia of useful knowledge. We can only
remark that what the City Attorney don't know
is not worth knowing-unless it happens to be
| law.
But under the ordinance passed the 18th of March
1853 it in the power of majority Of the inhabitant,
and property holders whenever they deem the road
through Nayades street. Tvol Place. Tritor
and Baronne streets nuisance to have said rtrae
removed and if the Company is unreasonable it would
be best the majority exercise this right then the
Council could let out to the highest bidder the privilege
of using these streets terms most advantageous Il
the city and to the public II would be polite to procure
the signatures of the majority and advertise proposals
rather than submit to the exscons of Company whose
presiding officer allegiance to this countryn