New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1870-06-23

ture, and l shall in q very short time do
myself the honor Of laying before the Conn.
Gil my idea of that which is wanted to se.
cure safe and economical administration
OF the law matters of the city.
Il nave the honor to be youi obedien,
GEORGE S. LACEY,
The report was received,
The sunjoined report on another matter
referred to the City Attorney, was received
and ordered to be printed:
OFFICE CITY ATTORNEY, |,
New Orleans, June IL, 1870.
Te the Honorable the Mayor and Council, city of
New Orleans -
GENTLEMEN On the eighth day of March,
1867, an act Incorporating the City of Jetfer.
son wac approved by his Excellency Gov
ernOr Wells
By paragraph six, of section seven, of that
act, the Common Council OF the city of JEFF
ferson was invested with the entire control
OF all the streets, levees, wharves and side
walks of the city, and by the eleventh para
graph Of the same section the City of JEFF
terson was authorized to make loans to paw
for necessary ameliorations and improve
ments within the limits of the city, in which,
it is conceded, the paving of streets is in
Guided. By those two paragraphs. full au-
thority, doubtless, was conferred upon the
City Of Jefferson to make such improve.
ments relative to her streets as she might
deem proper, at her own expense, and with.
ont reference to contribution on the part
OF property owners in front of whose pro.
perty the improvements should be made.
Paragraph twelve of the section under
consideration was intended to meet differ
ent state of things than that embraced in
paragraphs six and eleven. 1t was adopted
with a view OF giving to the proprietors of
land fronting on any public street or avenue
the right to demand the opening, widening
or improving the banquettes, sidewalks,
shell or plank roads or paved streets. This
paragraph provided the way or manner in
which this right was to be exercised, and de.
clared that the crossings and intersections
of the streets, and one-third of the roadways
in front of the property, should be at the
expense of the city. and the sidewalks or
banquettes and one-third of the roadway or
street, at the expense of the property.own-
ers, of whose property the same should be
done by contract, adjudicated by the Con-
troller, under regulations to be prescribed
BY the Council, to the lowest bidder.
On the twenty.second of April, 1867,
number of front proprietors on ST. Charles
avenue, in the City of Jefferson, not having
the slightest reference to paragraphs six
and eleven, of section seven, but clearly.
and only acting under paragraph twelve, of
that section. pctitioned the City of Jefferson
for certain flag walks. and for the paving of
that avenue with the Nicolson pavement.
The work was adjudicated and CON-
pleted or in a state of compile ton when Bur.
CESS Bennett and others, owners of prop
erty fronting on st. Charles avenue, alleg.
ing that from the character of the work,
the principles of completion, as contempla.
ted by paragraph twelve, was impossible,
and that by reason Thereof they could not
be made liable for their portion of the as
sessment. epjoined the city of Jefferson,
from proceeding to collect from them any
portion of the contract price OF the work,
and virtually. if not specifically prayed,
that the ordinance under which the work
was done, might be declsred illegal and
without effect.
The Judgment of the lower court main
tanned the prayer of the petitioners, but
upon appeal to the Supreme Court, that
Judgment, so far as it declared the nullity
and illegality of the ordinance in question,
in its effect upon the city OF Jefferson,
should be reversed.
No matter what may have been said in the
opinion of the court. it is to the decree
alone that reference must be had, in order
to determine what was the thing sdjudged.
This is a we'll settled principle of law, lately
affirmed by the Supreme Court of this State,
id the case of Davidson VS.. Carroll, Hoy u
Co.
Under the decree, consider that, so far
s the ordinance affected property holders,
iAis adjudged to be illegal and without
effect. As to the city of New Orleans, it
still possesses vitality; and under the same.
the liability of the city to certain extent,
NAV be admitted to be determined. But, to
what extent By the counsel representing
the Southern Paving Company, whose very
ingenious and lucid statement has been for
warded to me by the Council, it is con-
tended, that in the opinion of the Supreme
Ccurt, the City OF Jefferson was liable,
under paragraphs six and eleven. of section
seven for the whole amount of the contract
price, for the work done On st. Charles
avenue.
Such is not my view of the matter. It is
true. the Supreme Court does refer to the
general powers possessed by the City OF
Jefferson, but not in such manner AS to
make it perfectly clear to my mind that IN
the view of that court the City OF Jefferson
was liable under those paragraphs. The
CITY of Jefferson is declared to be liable; but
why liable? Because she could not invoke
the want of competition; and under the
Contract, resting upon paragraph twelve,
she was bound to the extent of one-third.
Had the court, however, expressed the
opinion that the City of Jefferson was liable
under paragraphs Six and eleven, then l re-
spectfully suggest that the court fell into
an error, and Will be glad to retrace its steps,
should the matter again be brought before
that tribunal.
The Nicholson Paving Company con-
tracted with the Council of the City OF JET
ferson, under paragraph twelve of section
seven of the city charter by that fact, and
by the very terms of the contract, it was
kho 1i.h; ff