New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1871-02-17

tract, as contemplated by said act, between
the State of Louisiana and said company;
whereupon, being invested by the contract
implied by said act No. 4, and subsequently
ratified. the said company made demand
upon the Board of Drainage Commissioners
of the first, second and third draining DIS
tricts, created by said act of March IL, 1893.
to comply with the provisions OF sad act
No. 4, OILS
The commissioners of the third draining
district did COMPLY, and did turn over the
books property ami effects as directed by
said act No. j of 1870, but the Board of
Commissioners of the first and second
draining districts still refused such com
pliance.
TN such noncompliance on the part of
the said commissioners, the said company
took various actions against said commits
sioners in the several district courts of the
parish OF Orleans to compel such com
pIiance Such actions have resulted in
every ease in favor of the company, in the
district courts, but have been taken, by APP
peal, to the Supreme Court OF this State,
where they now remain.
Your committee find that the company
has complied fully with the requirements of
its charter. and OF the said subsequent acts;
that il has continued its engineering, sur
revs and its purchases of real estate for
teliplated in said acts: that it has contracted
for the entire execution of the entire work
contemplated 10y said acts.
Such contracts were first made under the
authority conferred by said acts OF lSo9,
with responsible parties. who furnished and
delivered machinery for doing the work,
but tie company was compelled, at great
expense. to Vacate such contracts, from the
fact that one part of said contract stipulated
-, t.,t-
tain bonds OF the company. the interest OF
which was guaranteed by an ordinance
OF the Council of the City OF Jefferson.
which sad ordinance was subsequently
Sulemnly ratified by not;rial contract be-
tween said city and said company.
SHORTY after the execution of said con-
tract the said City of Jefferson became
lner red into the city OF New Orleans;
whereupon the City Council of the latter
citv as Successors of said city OF Jefferson,
refused to execute the Endorsement OF said
bonds Hence. the company WAS unable to
uSr such bonds in the payment OF Its said
contracts tor construction; and from the re-
tusal Of the said Council of the city of New
Orleans. as above stated. great part of the
LITIGATION III which the company has been
involved. Is chargeahle. -.
On the passage of the act No. 4. OF tH0.
the company entered into other contracts
plated by said act. with other responsible
parties, which contracts are still in force ::
and that said contractors furnished large
sums OF money to be used for the purposes
OF such work
That subsequently the company being
met By the refusal of the SAID boards OF
commissioners TO comply with the require
meuts of said act No. of 1870, it was I'M
able TO comply fully with It's part OF said
Il Il
into court to contest the rights conferred
bv the last named act. and that in every
ease iud sncnt has been rendered in favor
of the coinpanv, aud sustaining the conSti-
nationality o. the said acts of lSoS. 1869 and
1879.
The last silt was appealed to the Supreme
Court II the instance of the city OF New
Orleans. as an interviewer. on the ground
that said city claimed to be IN interested
party.
One ground taken by said city is that a
clause in the charter of the city, passed
March IT, 1870. gives the city the superin-
ten,irnce OF canals. drains. etc. within the
city limits: and under that clause the city
claims the entire superintendent of the
property. effects. etc, of drainage commits
.ionrrs. The suit. III which the city of New
Orleans i u party are now before the
Supreme Court.
II l. Dcfonu the PROVINCE Oh tOl!i COM
mittre 10 discuss the merit of the suits or to
speculate on their result: suffice il that
thcv now appear interminable, and during
their continuance. Il Is more than probaD Bile
that the drama re Of the city OF New Orleans
will be entirely suspended. cor at least de-
layeG. to the manifest detriment to public
health. Your committee have found great
difficulty in their efforts 10 discover means
Of escape from the dilemma in which the
drainage Of the city is placed, being unable
~ discover any act of omission or commits
sion on the part of the company. i'll contra
venton of its chartered rights or of the
subsequent acts OF the Legislature: on the
| contrary. il has used more than ordinary
effort To adjust. by compromise. the qlles-
ton, at issue with the City Council
lii order to harlnon>ze the conflicting in
| terc>t>. to secure an efficient system OF
| drama 20. and 70 place the superintendent
| and control OF all matters relating thereto.
| in the Council Of the city of New Orleans.
| Your committee respectfully recommends
| that the Lee stature avail itself of the eX-
| erci~e of the authority contained in article
| AZ OF Rays Revision of the Civil Code as
| follows: A corporation legally established
| may he dissolved by an act of the Legi>la
ture if they deem it necessary or cOnve-
nient TO the public interest; provided. that
when the act of Incorporation imports a
contract. on TIE lal!n Ol Willcn lltl' Is
have advanced money or engaged their
property, it can not be repealed without
providing for the reimbursement of the adj
vances made or making full indemnity to
such individual. etc." and repeal the char
ter of the New Orleans and Ship Island
Canal Company. and provide for the in
Identification vi the Individuals by the fol
lowing act:
DAVID YOUNG.
Chairman:
:. MARVIN,
4. TUREACD.
And the report and House bill No. 2Gl,
an act to dissolve the corporation known as
the New Orleans and Ship Island Canal
Company. to repeal certain acts, to provide
the mode Of liquidation of the affairs of
said corporation. and to provide the means
therefor, reported by the committee. was
laid upon the table subject to call.
The Committee on Elections and Qualifi-
cations, through It's chairman, submitted
the following report, which was read and
received: