New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1870-09-01

saloons. etc.
Agreeably TO said section. continuance
of the entertainment after twelve O'Clock
works d forfeiture of the license.
A. S. BADGER,
Superintendent Of Police.
Mr. Pierce moved to refer the matter to
the Mayor.
Mr.. West suggested that it would be
better to refer i to the City Attorney 70
take proceedings for the forfeiture o. the
license.
Nr Pierce said his object il referring
the petition 10 the Mayor was that lie
should consult the City Attorney.
Referred to the Mayor.
Unfinished Business.
The reports made by the Mayor al TIE last
regular meeting on the claims Of L. Pessou,
Victor Beiot & Lanabare. Edward P;nac and
Behan. Thcrne, Benjamin Campbell and
Saddler and PIattsmier were called up, and
adopted.
BY tue Mayor:
MAroRALrr OF NEW ORLEANS
August 81, 1870. 5
To The CITY Council of New Orleans;
report back favorablt the ordinance
referred 10 me providing for the settle
ment OF the claims of S. D. Moody. amount
Ing to sos 80. under ordinance 49, Admin
istration Series. The amount Is due for sal
aries on the March pay rolls OF the late
City of Jefferson.
BENZ. F. FLANDERS, Mayor.
The report was anopted, and the claim
was ordered paid.
Mr.. Bonzano called up resolution chang
ing the assessment of Zachary BrueIn from
$4,000 to sl0, 800, which appears in the pro-
ceedngs of August l6 as having been
adopted, and was officially promulgated
August l9. but which. he said. had never
been adopted.
A vote was taken, and the resolution was
again declared passed.
Mr.. West presented the following report,
which was laid over to be printed
DEPARTMENT op IMPROVEMENTS,
July y, 1870. J
To the City Couuc:. OF New Orleans;
The undersigned respectfully submits the
following report on the petition OF Henry
c. Brown. with regard to alleged violation
of drainage contract by the late City CoUn
Gil =
Henry c. Brown makes known 20 the
present Council that, in October last. he made
his petition to their predecessors setting
forth that as contractor to clean and deepen
certain draining canals he had suffered
certain damage from tie failure of the city
to keep its draining machines in operation
while be was doing his work, and By reason
of extra work and expense incurred, for
which he asks to be paid. He also, sets
forth that he was employed by the former
4It,Y,-
of the Council. but, as he AYERS that of tie
Committee on Streets and Landings. to
clean the London avenue canal and reser-
voir, as being necessary to be done before
the other canals could be advantage0usiy
worked upon. He claims similar extra pay
for this as for other canals.
1t seems that he was paid all his contract
price for the work on these canals, lnc.u-
sive OF that on the London avenue canal.
His claim for extra pay Is based on
clause inserted in each of the contracts. and
which he claims to be implied III the en-
DIoyment as to the London avenue canal,
that the draining machines will, during
the progress of the work, keep, as tar as
practicable. the canal free from any acCuMu
iation Of water which could interfere with its
execution
The limitation 'as far ~ practicable
must be noticed. It seems from the report
made to the undersigned by the City Sur
veyor, that the failure to run the draining
machines was due to a force over which the
city had no control, an order of court which
enoined it from running them; this must
certainly be held to cover the case, and to
show that it was not practicable for the city
TO keep the water down.
But if this should be held not to furnish
an adequate answer to the claim for extra
labor and work. damage, etc. as TO the
canals for which this contract was made. il
certainly will apply to the London avenue
work, for which no contract was made. Be
sides, the latter was done in direct defiance
of the provisions of the charter requiring
work over 500 in value TO be let out by
contract.
The testimony taken by petitioner GER
tainly shows that he was much hindercd by
the failure to keep the draining machines
III operation. but this is ex parte testimony.
and therefore must be taken with many
grains of allowance
The city certainly can not consent that
such a clause as this, that the draIng ma
chimes shall be Kept running las tar as
practicable shall impose upon 1t damages
and charges for extra work when the run,
ming OF the draining machines was rendered.
mpracticable by an injunction.
Nor can extra work be allowed Wnen
there was no contract in writing, ID tact 20
contract binding on tile city at all! and con
sequently no such clause as this TO affect
the city, and when the claimant has already
received his payment for that work from
the officer for whom and on whose employ
ment of him he did it. and who must have
Il dun