New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1871-07-21

ascertained, after the last meeting Of the.
Council, that the ordinance was illegal, and
involved questions of great Importance to
I the city. - 3z8Ss W a. "a
Mr. Walton said the adoption of the ordi-
nance placed the Council in most ridicu-
lous position. They had granted Mr. Nor
gan extensive privileges on the levee, and
at the same time were contesting the right
of others to give similar privileges on the
levee at Calliope street. They had in
structed the City Attorney to fight on one
side, while they surrendered on the other
Mr. Remick believed this was not fair
statement because in the other cases there
was not an adequate consideration given;
in this case there was.
The Mayor: will not discuss the ques-
ton; shall simply do my duty in the mat
ter. have not prepared have not had
time to do-anything more than simple
remonstrance, but | will veto the ordinance
whether the Council will hear it or not.
Mr.. Remick: You have not the power
The Mayor: This is the next regular
meeting.
Mr.. Remick: But communications from
the Mayor must come first in the order Of
business:
The Mayor: l will put in my veto, and
you can rule it out if you please.
Mr.. Remick: protest
The Mayor: / ask the Council to hear me.
Mr. Remick: l make the point of order,
that the veto can not be received at this
stage of the proceeding. 1t should come
first.
The Mayor replied it would have come
first, but at the very opening of the Council
the Administrator of Finance had made
motion to reconsider the ordinance.
Mr.. Remick said the Administrator Of
Finance was out of order in making any
such motion. Whether he had done it at
the suggestion of the Mayor or not, he Mr..
Remick) did not know.
The Mayor: l will leave it to the Council.
Mr.. Remick; asked that the point of or
der be decided by the Chair.
The Mayor: The question is whether the
Mayors veto message should be received or
not.
Mr. Bonzano: That is not the question.
The Administrator of Commerce raises
point of order.
Mr. Remick: My point of order is that at
this stage of the proceedings without sus
pension of the rules the Mayors message
could not be received.
The Mayor: ask some member to move
a suspension of the rules.
Mr. Remick: As a member of the Council,
ask the Chair to decide the point of order
raised.
The Mayor: decide it is not correct.
Mr.. Shaw: l believe it is not proper for
this Council to decline to receive a eOmmu-
nication from the Mayor. l am not willing
to insist upon this point of order that pre-
vents the Mayor from making communica-
ton at any time. / would not allow the
Council to do it to me. We have got some
think the fewer the better; we have
too many now; but we are a council of only
seven persons, presided over by the Mayor,
and it is better that we should get along
quietly, without appealing to rules and tech
nicalities. l have never sworn to obey
these rules. and will not obey them unless
it suits me to do so. They have been quoted
against me forty times. 1t is legal ques-
ton whether the Mayors veto at this time
has any validity or not, and | wish that to
stand on its merits. The action of the Coun
ell is not worth farthing as affecting this
question of law. l hope the point of order
will not be insisted upon.
Fir. Remick insisted ON his point of order.
Mr.. Bonzano moved that the message be
received and spread upon the minutes.
Mr.. Remick called for decision.
The Mayor requested the motion to be
put in writing and, at the suggestion of Mr..
BonZano, the Council took recess of ten
minutes.
On reassembling, Mr.. Remick handed in
the following:
My point of order is, that communications
from the Mayor are not in order at this
stage of the proceedings of the Council
Mr.. Bonzano, before the vote was taken,
would like to inquire what stage the pro-
ceedings were in.
Mr.. Walton did not believe there had
which the rules had been adhered to-
The Mayor ruling the point of order not
well taken, an appeal was taken from the
decision of the Chair.
The ruling was sustained by Administra-
tors Shaw, Lewis and Walton-3.
Against: Administrators Cockrem, Rem
ick and Bonzano-3.
The Mayor having vote in case of tie,
sustained his own decision.
The veto was received and read, as fol-
lows:
NEW ORLEANS, July Is, 1871.
To the City Council of New Orleans:
ADMINIsTRATORs-I think it my duty to
return to the Council, without my sigma
ture. the ordinance adopted at the last
meeting leasing the Picayune tier to Charles
Morgan for period of ten years. 1t is
very desirable that Mr.. Morgans railroad
and his business should have every possible
facility, and this city and the Council
should do everything they possibly can to
accommodate them; but the ordinance
which grants Mr.. Morgan the exclusive
right to portion of the river front for
period of ten years, is declared by the City
Attorney to be illegal.
This very question of the right of either
State or city to dispose of the levee front
after it has been declared a locus pubIicus
is now before the courts. and on the deci-
sion of this question millions of dollars and
to great extent the commercial future of
the city depend.
| therefore suggest a reconsideration of
this ordinance, with view to affordng Mr..
Morgan the required facilities in some more
legal manner. .....-
REM K FTANDFPS Mavor
CITY ATTORNEYS OFFICE
July ID, 1871. {
The opinion expressed by his honor the