New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1871-05-17
CITY CoUNcIL-OFFICIAL
REGULAR MEETING,

Il. It ~,
Mayor, presiding.
There were present Administrators John
Cockrem tImprovenents), Alfred Shaw lac
counts), l.. I. Delassize Public Buildings),
+. Z. Remick Commerce., James Lewis
(PoEce). John S. Walton (Finance), and II.
Bonzano tAssessments).
Veto Of the Eighth Street Railroad.
MAYoRALrY OF NKw ORLKASs
May l6. 1871. )
To tbs City Council of New Orleans:
ADMINISTRATORS take the liberty to
| return without my signature the ordinance
| adopted at the last meeting, granting to the
Carondelt street and Carrollton City Rail
road Company additional rights and priv
| leges Tor the extension, maintenance and
Use of its railroad on Eighth street, in the
| city of New Orleans.
A remonstranee has been handed in from
property owners of Eighth street against
the construction of railroad through that
| thoroughfare, which deserves consideration
The objections are that Eighth street,
wherein two tracks ale to be laid according
| to the ordinance, is too narrow even for one
! track, and that no railroad is needed on
| that street.
| There is further objection that the time
OF twenty years for which the privilege is
| given, is too long for such grant, especi-
| ally as clause inserted in the original
! draft of the ordinance to prevent the use
OF the privilege for speculative purposes
was omitted from the ordinance as passed
Believing that the Council acted without
due elaboration in passing this ordinance,
and DESTROYS of giving them an opportunity
| of reconsideration. l veto the ordinance.
BENZ. +. FLANDERS, Mayor.
On motion of Mr.. Cockrem, the consider
alton of the veto was deferred.
Veto of the Department of Commerce
Organization.
Mr.. Remick called up the deferred veto of
the ordinance organizing the Department of
Commerce.
The message was read by the Secretary,
as follows:
MASORALTY OF NEE oRLKAss,( |
April Is. 1911 ! |
To the City Council of New Orleans:
ADMINIsTRAToRs-I return, without my |
signature, IAN ordinance to organize the |
Department of Commerce." adopted by the |
Council at its last meeting. The officers I
and salaries provided for in that ordinance
exceed what is deemed necessary by at
least thirty thousand dollars year
There are twelve inspectors of markets
at a salary of $1,000 each. These officers
are most of them unnecessary, as has been /
shown by the experience of the last three or
four months, during which there have been
no such officers. One or two inspectors for
the whole city, who should visit the mar
kets at unexpected times, would be suffi-
cient. 1t is true the Board of METROPOLITAN
Police has withdrawn from its agreement to
allow the police officers detailed for duty at
the markets to exercise a certain super
vision over them; but these markets are
places of public resort; police officers must
be there, and are still stationed there, and
it is their duty, under the laws and ordi-
nances of the city, to preserve peace
snd good order. There is an in
spector appointed by the State to in
spect all animals intended for slaughter
before they are killed, to be sold in the
market; and there are sanitary inspectors
appointed by the Board of Health, and paid
by the city, who make it their duty to in
speo1 the meat brought to market. Little
else remains for commissary or inspector
to do. except to see that the farmer, whose
duty it is to keep the market clean, per-
forms that duty. This does not require a |
continual attendance, and watch over
every stall, or the appointment of an in
spector to every market.
The ordinance provides also for four
at $500 year; four deputy
at $1,000 each, and four acting !
deputy wharfingers at $1,000. The number
Of whartingers should be reduced to the old
standard, and the duty of collecting the ,
evee dues should be taken out of their
hands and given to employees of the Depart
nent of Finance, whose duty it is, under {
he charter, to receive and collect the reve-
lues of the city. A wharfnger can not at !
end properly to both duties While at
ending TO one he must neglect the other,
In addition to these officers there is a super t
ntendent of wharfngers at $500, super 9
ntendent of market inspectors at SlS0O,
md superintendent of the fire department
1t $500. These superintendents leave little l
or the Administrator of Commerce to do '
md he has a secretary at $4,000, clerk at !;
1880, and messenger at 5000 to assist him.
of the Fire Department is a l
lew office, since the city entered into C
entract with the Firemen's Charitable AS a
Ociation, and quite unnecessary No per
Ons owing duty to the city 60 to that duty
With so great alacrlty as the firemen do, | L
They are under contract with the city, and | il
manage their own affairs exceedingly well. \
my officer appointed to 'superintend'
hem must hold his place as sinecure, or
" his otficiousness create trouble where +
one has existed heretofore. t
1t is not intended in these remarks T. I'M q.
errate or belittle the Administrator of
Commerce. In his legislative capacity as I
member of the Council he will be worth s
o the city all and more than all that the {
ity pays him. 1t is not his. fault that
is executive duties are less numerous
nd important than those of Admins d
rators of other departments Such, how b
yer, is the case, and 1t is regarded as both h
mpOlitic and unjust to the taxpayers to :
tempt to find employment for the Admin
strator by creating a number of useless I
Ulcers for his supervision. / fail to per T
Give the logic OF the argument the Admin $
'tratOr made use of at the last meeting.
hen he said, Il want to have my depart.
lent organized. Then we will talk about e
Experience has shown us il
is much easier not to appoint unnecessary
Ulcers than to get rid of them after ap- =
ointment. | think it is much better that y
ne Administrator should be left free to as +
st in bringing about the retrenchment h
ecessary in other departments by having h
o useless officers in his own.
have still another objection to this ordi- u
ance, which is that it says the Administra- IA
)r of Commerce shall define the duties of el
lese officers. The duties of the officers are
eEned by the laws and ordinances, and a
roper control over them should not be re- Il
by the Council. Undoubtedly fl
'ithout intending it, the Administrator has =
hown disposition which has been -
DO common, of proceeding as if each o.
apartment was separate Council, seven e
ounclls instead of one and ia this con e,
ecton | viii, in passing, remark, with r.
Ut at all applying the remarks to the De v
artment Of Commerce, to which they do u
OF refer, that though the charter distinctly
roVldes that the Council alone shall have 81,
ne power of appointing officers and of dis u
lssing them, that a custom has grown I'D y
| |, administrators appointing or discharging hi