New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1871-04-26

~ d. - sz q. e e = q I =
stl6rwies ~ 5oi5 & III = ~ s. 81
q no value. wha(0Fer. 1ke co1hpany = MT
required to aGtee to Il = conditi6n Pre-,
eedent and the city, having acknowledged
the contract by setting the co4leny to
work according to the terms Of the law, viii,
Of aecersity, have been put in for the whole
contract without any reservation whatever;
and have never known Or heard Of any
contractor with tho city who would volun-
tarily abate one jot or title Of his contract
advantages, or who would not claim Of the
city excessive damages, should it desire to
modify or abandon works which were
found't0 be unnecessary or inexpedient.
Irepeat that in the face of the facts ad-
duced and the evidence presented, per
sistence in this ordinance will be q vol
untary and unnecessary payment to the
Mississippi and Mexican Gulf Ship Canal
Company of at least one million Of dollars
which can be saved to the taxpayers.
/ Nor does the impolicy or injustice of this
ordinance end here. BY the terms Of the
act of the Legislature, these drainage
works are to be carried on "in New Orleans
and CarrOlltOn." In the ordinance the
phrase is, New Orleans and environs.'
The change of phraseology IS calculated to
mislead, and cause one to overlook the i'm
portant fact that the city of New Orleans
alone is made responsible and liable not
only to pay for the canals and levecs con-
structed in New Orleans, but also for those
constructed in CarrOlltOn, and without the
right or power of reclamation being any
where given to New Orleans in the act.
Til. plea Of urgent and immediate neces-
sity, urged in the act, is not supported by
facts. Assuming, however, that the imme-
diate necessity for entering on this work
does exist, this company is not the only one
able to commence operations at once. Any
other contractors, with adequate financial
resources, could get to work inside Of thirty
days.
The cost of the canals and protection lie
wees at the price as fixed in the act is est.
mated in. a report by the City Surveyor,
made in compliance with q call from the
Council, at two millions of dollars, and the
price at which, according to his experience,
it can be done, allowing fair margin to the
contractor for profits. is from twenty-five
cents to thirty cents per cubic yard, or in
amount about one-third that required to be
paid to the Mississippi and Mexican Gulf
Ship Canal Company for the work. An off,
about ten miles in aggregate length,
excavated ~ the drainage commissioners,
gives an average of . little less than twenty
eight cents per cubic yard. One of them,
the Claiborne canal. three and half miles
in length, forty-four feet wide and eight
feet deep, dug with dredgeboat through
the most difficult swamp in the rear Of the
city, filed with stumps Apd cypress knees,
cost only twenty one cents per cubic yard,
including every expense except fist cost OF
the dredgebOat. Include the dredgeb0ats,
and the cost of those canals was less than
thirty cents per cnbic yard. I have verified
this statement by a careful examination of
the books of the drainage commissioners.
This certificate and the report of the City
Surveyor are hereunto appended, as well as
the proposal of the New Orleans Dredging
Company. 1 further ask leave of the Coun
Gil to publish, in connection with this mes
sage, the elaborate and exhaustive opinion
Of the City Attorney, rendered in response
to request of the Council that he would
examine into the constitutionality of this
bill.
To recapitulate, my objections to the or
dinance are these:
The act of the Legislature on which it is
! based is unconstitutional, and held to be so
by the Council; it Is so pronounced by the
City Attorney, who by the charter is made
our legal adviser; and it is declared such in
the ordinance before us.
An acceptance of any part of this con-
tract binds us for the whole, including the
drainage works in Carrollton at least, un-
less the reservation of the rights Of the
Council under the contract, to modify it or
to contract with other parties, be previously
conceded by the company.
1t would render US liable to the extent Of
fifty thousand dollars q month, which we
have either to pay in money or in paper OBJ
legations. The former we are unable to do,
as our estimated current expenses are far
beyond our estimated receipts provided for
in the budget, and the latter would en-
barrass the Council and greatly depreciate
city obligations.
Because by recognizing this contract the
city gives away at least one millionpiOllars
of the Taxpayers money to company
whose only capital consists Of bonds of the
State, issued to them gratuitously, Of which
bonds the city of New Orleans pays nearly
: one-half their face value.
Because the ordinance is neither an &C.
ceptance of the act of the Legislature SO as
to relieve the city Of all contingent pains
and penalties, nor a rejection Of the act so
as to bring the question Of its constitution
atty fairly and squarely before the courts,
but, under the guise of a protest against the
constitutionality Of the enactment, the Or
dinance virtually accepts the contract pro-
posed by the bill. and thus renders the city
liable for all the cost of compliance, without