Vicksburg weekly herald. (Vicksburg, Miss.) 1868-1883, 1870-09-03

oil Morgan.
The Memphis Appeal, ofthe 24th,
has the following on steamboat
wharfage 1--WE understand that a
combination of steamboatmen has
been formed for the purpose of test
ing the right OF, not only Memphis,
but all the cities on the Mississippi
river, TO collect Wharfage from
steamboats,. The object of this
as it is explained by the
st. Louis Republican, is to virtually
free the river commerce from tax
for landing and lying at the wharf
in front ofthe city, and to place our
river commerce upon the same foot
ing az railroads, and even the ordi-
nary traffic between countrr and
city by wagons which pass over our
streets without paying either a tax
to improve, maintain, or repair the
roadway. Primarily the steam.
boat owners claim the abolition of
wharfage as an act of mere justice,
and as being in effect only a sur
render by the city ofan usurpation
Of power over the free navigation
of a national water highway, which
usurpation has imposed an onerous
tax upon q single interest to the
detriment ofthe trade Of the city, by
restricting competition between
river and rail freightage to the adj
vantage and in the interest of the
latter only. The contestants Of the
city's power do not, however rest
their case upon this point ofabstract
right. They claim in effect that
their rights TO land at any point on
the Mississippi river for the receipt
or dicEarge OF cargo, to make neces-
sary repairs, or to await business, is
derived from the grant by the Span.
ish Government, when 1t was the
sovereign Of Louisiana territory, TO
the watermen or boatmen of a tract
of land fifty feet wide, extending on
either side of the river from the
Gulf of Mexico to the Falls OF ST.
Anthony for q towpath, and for the
use of boatmen in hauling out their
barges for caulking or repairs, and
for the receipt and discharge Of
freight, which grant was especially
reaiirmed in the treaty by which
Spain coded the Louisiana territory
to France, and which was again re.
affirmed by the terms OF the treaty
by which France ceded the territory
to the United States. The point
made 10 not new, and has been adj
Indicated by the courts in more
than one instance, but never def.
nitely, SO tar as municipal corpora
tons are concerned. In 1875 Cap.
tain Rhoades, OF the steamer Sam
Gaty, refused to pay wharfage
claimed by Edward Walsh, then
owner Of q large portion OF river
front in the north end OF the city.
Suit was brought, and the counsel
for Captain RhOades based his case
upon the Spanish grant OF the tow
path, and quoted from a decision
previously made by the Supreme
Court of the State in the case Of
Mullanphy VS.. the steamer 81
Louis, in which the court held
hal the Spanish grant was
conclusive against private indi-
%viduais-in other words that the
property rights of Mullanphy did
not reach to the high-water mark.
Upon this point a decision was
given in favor OF Captain Rhoades,
and Mr.. Walsh refused or declined
TO take on appeal to the higher
courts, although his opponent urged
him to do so, and even offered Il
sum of money to have the case car.
ried to a final and conclusive deter.
mination. A similar case occurred
some years since in Louisiana, in
which the city Of New Orleans was
plaintiff, but which being carried to
the United States Circuit Court
was decided, it is said, upon a tech
nic2l point, in favor OF the city,
after which q compromise was Cf
fccted, the corporation surrender.
ing the wharfage claimed in order
to avoid the possibility OF an aver.
age decision by the Supreme Court
of the United States, aud the conse
quent overthrow OF all municipal
claim to regular Wharfage. We
have noticed these cases in point ~
indicating the ground upon which
the boatmen will eventually rest
their case, and do not now propose
to discuss the point even from the
abstract right Of free navigation OF
the river, or even as a resistance Of
special taxation. Necessarily there
are two sides 10 this as TO all other
questions, and although our river
trade has been depressed by high
rates, OF wharfage, and a tax
has thereby been imposed up.
on both the popular and rou.
sumner Of the produce carried, viii b
could not but operate to the lisad.
vantage Of our city as a whole, it
does not follow that q literal aud
positive upholding Of tile right of
all boats to the free and unrestrict-
ed use of our wharf and Of the
wharves of all municipalities along
the Mississippi river would be pro-
ductive only of good to the steam
boat interests, or would not of it.
self be followed by other and lesser
but equally positive disadvantages
to boat owners, merchants, and the
people as whole. Such an inter-
probation of the law would at once
disorganize business upon thelevee.
The CITY. having no power over the