New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1871-12-10

New Orleans, bounded by Cana
Delta and Poylras streets, and 4
line parallel to and one hundred and fifty
feet easterly from Delta street; and for til
construction Of freight depot, and 70
other purposes Of its legitimate bushes
streets in said city, bounded by Girod
Water and Calliope streets, and lint
parallel to and two hundred and ninety fee
easterlv from Water street
In the month of July 1869. subsequent tt
this grant. the City Council proposed t.
sell the square '27, A." aforesaid to Nor
gan. and this injunction suit followed.
BY the fifth and sixth sections of the act
approved February p, 1870 facts of 1870.
No. 81 the grants aforesaid were repeated
| and confirmed, the levee in front thereof
was specially and formally set aside to pub
lie use. and all ordinances enacted by the
city calculated to cOntravene the grant to
the plaintiff, were declared null and inoper-
alive.
Charles Morgan, intervening. claims
to be entitled to perfect his sale
square of ground is the private prop
erty of the municipal corporation from
which he has an incohate sale. He denies
that the State has any right or title to the
property, or any control over the same. ex-
cept by the exercise Of the power Of eminent
domain. and that the act OF the Legislature
assuming to grant the same to the plaintiff
is a law impairing the obligation o: con
tracts and divestiny vested rights.
In discussing the case No. 10 aforesaid it
was found that this batture property is
h"c"s pnbticus: that the city Of New Orleans
has 10 private property therein. and
no power whatever to change its
destination or to dispose Of it without the
authority OF an act Of the Legislature of the
State. 1t was also ascertained that though
the city OF New Orleans has a local and
subordinate power to administer the use Of
this public place. the paramount authority
to control and regulate the use of the lori
pnDlici within the municipal limits Resides
with the State.
No act ot the Legislature has been
exhibited authorizing the city ~ sell
this square OF ground, therefore the
ordinance b.: which it was proposed TO sell
have had no legal effect.
As was determined in the case aforesaid,
the act authorizing the occupancy and use
OF the place IN dispute was an application of
the locus p~blicns to IA legitimate public use
and a proper exercise OF the legislative
power to administer the public domain.
The intervenor in this case and the city
of New Orleans in this and other branches
OF this legislation, have urged that the
$1,000 ~
tanooga railroad the right to enter upon
the levee. convey to that company full
and indeteasble title to the realty; that the
state has no rover to give to private in
dividnal the property in the public street
and places.
OF this last proposition there is no ,,ues
ton. But candid examination of the
language of the several acts does not
Justify the conclusion that such
grant was made or was intended to
to be made. No words are used which are
usually employed in acts translative of title
1t therefore seems clear that the grants can
not be regarded in any other light than as a
mere license-a revocable license for the
railroad company to enter upon the public
streets and quays, and to use them for
what has been decided to be- public pur-
pose.
For the reasons expressed in the suit |
above cited. and for these additional rea-
sons. judgment will be given for the plain |
tiff the New Orleans, Mobile and Chatra-
nooga railroad.
The injunction will be perpetuated
The Intervention of Charles Morgan Vii |
be dismissed.
The city OF New Orleans will pay cost