New Orleans daily crescent. [volume] ([New Orleans, La.]) 1851-1866, 1856-09-08
Washington, August IS, 1856.
Draining. company-veto Message

It swel known that Mayor Waterman recently
vetoed resolution of the Common Council in rela-
tion to the New Orleans Draining Company, and that
the Board of Assistant Aldermen passed the resou-
ton over the veto, by the requisite majority. The
Board of Aldermen has yet to act upon the matter;
and from all learn it is doubtful what course
they will see fit to adopt E,.4So,. { N.
As this is q question Of much Importance, as well
to those directly interested to the taxpayers of
the city at large we have thought it desirable that
the views of the chief magistrate of the city should
enjoy the advantage Of general circulation. We,
therefore, give below his message in full leaving the
public to arrive ut their own conclusions :fEy f45
MAYoRALTy OF New ORLEANS
,.-s zs City Hall, 2Sth day of Aug, 1856
To the Honorable the Board Of Assistant Aldermen H
Gentlemen Il have had under consideration for
several days preamble and resolution in relation to
the New Orleans Draining Company, which here
with return without my approval. & s-e5J5a I;
The 18th section of the present City Charter re-
quires that if the Mayor shall disapprove Of any
ordinance or resolution, he shall, within FIVE days
from the time hereceiyed it, return the same to the
Board in which it originated with his objections in
writing. .lg 81 4s,s, 49, ~ ...,s.g.y.Sm4
My objections are three. }i&
Frst--Th the Common Council has no power to
pass the resolution. s-H' H 5ag1%
Second That if it had the power, the forms Of law
have not been complied with.
Third-That it is ineXpedient to pass it. f
short statement of facts is necessary to render
my objections more obvious. sd. tl,'.F
The city OF New Orleans owns $3.50 900 of the capi-
tai stock Of the New Orleans Draining Company
the State of Louisiana owns $50, ,O00-and individuals
own S53 600. The city owns therefore, about seven
ninths Of the capital stock. t.i n@
There is a judgment made final by the decree of
the Supreme Court, in favor of the Draining Com
pany, for about 100000. This Judgment is against
the owners of lots lying in the Second Draining Dis
trict and is secured by the first privilege upon the
lots drained. The whole Of it be collected The
interest of the city as stakeholder in the Judgment
isseven,ninths, or about $312,000 Tie resolution
adopted by the Common Council releases the owners
OF the lots drained from the Judgment or, in other
words, makes to them donation of $312,01O. This
Judgment is the property of the city Of New Orleans
stakeholder in the Draining Company. 1t neither
belongs to- nor has the Common Council any control
| over it. In its collective capacity, the Common
Council is but the agent or administrator of the cor
poratiOn Its powers defined and restrained; they
are specified and not general.
| The Supreme Court, in the case of the Louisiana
State Bankys The Orleans Navigation Company, (3d
Ann. p. 2940 decided that the Statute of 18th Feb
ruary 1905, incorporating the City Of New Orleans
coners, in general terms, powers Of administration
and, by its various special delegations of authority
excludes the idea Of any other power being granted
than such the police and preservation of good order
among the population require It also held, 'sthai
corporation being the creature of the law, possesses
only the powers which the charter creating it coner
either expressly Or as incidental to its existence.
These principles are fundamental and se1f-evident
The Council possesses only administrative powers
Having only administrative powers it cannot make
donation of the property Of the city to any one fo
the evident reason that no one can give that which
he does not own, and those who administer are moi
the owners of the property entrusted to their care
The resolution is act Of donation it gives to The
owners of the lots drained $4,000.
Be it resolved using the language of the reso
luton, by the Common Council of the City of New
Orleans, that the City of New Orleans doth hereby
release and renquish, to and in favor Of the land
situated in the Second Draining Section in proportion
to the amount assessed thereon and to and in favor
the proprietors Of said lands in proportion of the
several interests therein, whatever net interest and
right it may have in the decision lately rendered BY
the Supreme Court in favor Of the New Orleans
Draining Company etc. ,.ss4.
The interest, as before stated Of the city in the
judgment, is 000 and by the passage Of the res
oution the proprietors released from its payment
humbly conceive that the Common Council exceeded
its powers in passing the resolution.
VI Second. The 18th section of the Act of 1852, tht
II Get of Constellation which has not been repealed
provides that no ordinance making an appropriation
exceeding one thousand dollars shall be passed eXcep
by q majority of the members elected in each Board
The 10th section of the same act mot repealed
provides that whenever vote shall be taken il
either Board upon the passage Of ordinance or res
outon which shall contemplate the sale, dispositio
q or appropriation of public property or the eSpend
ture OF public moneys, the income thefefroln sue
ordinance or resolution shall before the same be sen
to the other Board and the adjourn
ment ef the Aoara at which the same shall have bee