New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1871-01-12

no tmo to fritter away in postponins from
| day to day such an important bill as this
1t was passed by a Republican Legislature
and if the gentleman will only 60 back a
far as Mondays Tines, he will find hand
some Democratic argument in favor of pass
ing it. l havet no charge to mako agains
the gentlemen who oppose this bill. 1t /:
| said that figures will not lie. The plain fac
is that figures do lie, especially when they
get into committees. We have beer
! told that the main object is to pu,
this company, and the next cry ia that the
| gentlemen in this corporation ara not Re
pub!icans. We have nothing to do with
that. We are here to legislate for the bcs,
interests Of the State, and if the Repub
lican Legislature pass the BILL and the
Democratic press say it is a good one. dc
not see that we are doing any harm II we
pass any such bill. II they encourage us
to pass such a bill, We have a right to do it
I believe it is unnecessary to postpone it
any further. 1t it comes up tomorrow it
will be postponed until we finally exhaust
the better part of this session on this bill.
IYOuld call attention to another point
VIII lit is not necessary to prOlOng this any
furt her. If the gentleman will compare the
veto message with the figures on the Mis-
sissippi levee in Mondays Times, he will find
out by actual figures, instead of the large
sum which would be received as set down.
it would only amount to some seven hun
dred thousand dollars. Another point:
: This corporation is in the hands of parties
who offer as bonds the sum Of one million
dollars. There is ample security for them
to attend to their duty. There is nothing to
fear from them SO far as this is concerned.
| do not doubt but that the Governor sent
in the veto from the best Of motives. and
of the whole State. I believe that if this
statement is correct the Governor himself
might say that i'll the multiplicity OF his af-
fairs he had not examined it as closely as he
might have done.
We want 10 get to some other business
and shall vote against any opposition to
this bill.
Mr.. Carter, of Cameron, having obtained
permission Of the Speaker to discuss the
merits of the question, said, in substance:
The location and construction of the levecs
are to be under the control of the State and
Federal governments, by the appointment
of an engineer. Ii the parties fail tO carry
out their contract, We are authorized to
have the levees constructed at their ex-
pense. They are required to deposit one
million to cover damages, and, under the
general provisions of the law, they will
forfeit their franchise. You will take the
it Is a question whether you use a corpora
ton with a million Of security to do
the work that is now done by
Board of Public Works that gives $4,000
as security for personal integrity alone and
not for damages. Can any one say that it
is disadvantage to the State to use our
power to protect the people! ! make a
point on the question whether it is better
to turn these levees over to Board of Pub
y Ia To, ,,rst-. 70 H,rv
all public enterprises, all public works, I'M
proved by being in private hands! Is it not
a matter of history that such has been the
case! All the great enterprises of this
world, and among them l may mention the
Mont Gents Tunnel, the Suez Canal,
and the Union Pacific Railroad, show this.
Upon the statement of General Hum
phries, it will take from ten to fifteen mil
lions to perfect the levce system, and this
company asks tax that amounts to $780,
0OO. They propose to issue their bonds and
cndeavor to have them Endorsed by the gen
eral government. The tax assumed is less
than the current expenses. Upon the Ques-
ton Of uncOnstitutiOnality will not argue.
The bill was framed by a lawyer who stood
head and shoulders above any of us, and
upon this bill he stakes his reputation. The
discriminating tax is not unconstitutional.
You have simply a million of dollars in
yoaI Hiuus. ~ l4lc company ~ VIKING u
stake their million and run the risk. the
State has no reason to complain. l have as
good an opinion of his Excellency as any
body, but upon question of this sort pre-
fer my own judgment to his.
Mr.. Worrall, of Jefferson, asked if any
member could vote under rule fifteen Of the
House if he held shares in the stock of this
company.
The question as to the passage of the bill
over the Governors veto being put, it re-
suited in the passage Of the bill by vote
OF seventy-six yeas to twenty-five nays.
On motion OF Mr.. Sartain, of Carroll. the
House adjourned at 2:45 z. n. until T. NJ.
Tomorrow.