New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1871-03-23

| L. II. Qulnlan, gas fixtures LOT Depart
| mcnt of Public Accounts, $40.
| Z. l.. RclimpiO for preparing statement of
suits in Sixth District Court, $50.
Thomas Soublet. repairs done in the
Parish Prison, approved by the Admins
TRAITOR of Waterworks and Public Build
ings. S445.
| Thomas Soublet, repairs done in the Old
Armory. approved by the Administrator of
Waterworks and Public Buildings. S27t.
John w. Madden. for binding tax books.
etc, Department of Public Accounts, elS3.
Read twice and laid over.
The Mexican Gulf Canal Company.
Mr.. Shaw said: We received at our last
meeting formal notice from the Mexican
Gulf Ship Canal Company. informing us of
their readiness to proceed, under section
seven of the drainage act passed at the last
session of the Legislature. This act is very
percmptory in its provisions, and | think
that the demand is so specific as to require
an immediate answer on the part of the
city, The act is No. 80 Of the last session
of the Legislature, and the notice was given
on the very day of its PRONUNCIATION. 1t is
addressed. not to the Mayor. but to the
Council. understand that the Mayor
has notified the company verbally
that any work done under this
section would be at their own risk and loss
hut assthi> demand is made directly on the
Council. | think it requires immediate ac
ton on our part We are directed 10y the
act to lay down the lines and locate a vast
system of lcvces and canals, so that the
company can commence their work within
fifteen DAYS after the passage of the act.
The city of New Orleans is made response
bic in damages if we fail TO do OF the
cost we have no estimate except the verbal
assurance that it will probably not exceed
two million dollars. \ work of such mag
nitrde think requires more specific infor-
nation than this. The provisions tor pay
ment are the collection of back drainage
taxes heretofore assessed 10y the drainage
boards. and the converting into money of
the assets of these drainage boards. and
also the imposition of tax of two mills
per superficial foot on hitherto untaxed
lands within the limits OF drainage Into
the adequacy OF these assets We are not
allowed sufficient time to investigate. The
chances are that they are totally insufficient.
aud many OF them will he difficult to con
vert into money. Yet we are required to
collect them in time to pay the work as fast
as done, and failing 50 TO collect. are 70 give
warrants hearing interest. What becomes
of these warrants. if the resources thus
provided fail May they not at any time
be converted into Judgment against the
city! We must meet this question with
earnestuc>s and candor. and not in the
spirit OF mere factious opposition. The bill
requires of us impos>ihiiltir>: il entails upon
IL work of magnitude lar beyond our
provided resources. We have not TIE means
or the machinery 10 perform even the pump
M and drainage required OF IL 10y the act 10
enable the company I" keep at work. We
have not the l,owc. 10 levy the additional tax
that would be required. Ev section seven
Of the new revenue act the future power 10
tax for municipal purposes l. limited to two
per cent. except upon IA vote of the people.
and of that two per cent more thau one per
cent is required to pay our interest. |,
VIII rcuuir" time 10 investigate hat Will
he the total Of this great wcrk No
doubt parts OF il are greatly neoccd and
were :. proper subject OF legislative
requirement.. Had the Legislature
required rs to cause 'lc.r thing, to be done
and placed III our hands adequate powers
aud resources 10 meet the expense. | would
not question the validity or cXptdiency OF
rhi- bill. We do net object to the company
as Il means OF performing the work. They
aye energetic. enteTprslng men. and have
already performed a great work of i'm
provemcut III our State. They have the
machinery. and could enter upon the work
sooner and pu>h il more ctfectually. per
haps. than any other company or contractor.
But this does not in my opinion NAL it
legal or constitutional that the Legislature
should require the city of New Orleans to
contract for the work with the Mexican
Gulf Canal Company alone. There is a
still more glaring injustice. The act not
only tells Ms with whom we shall contract
hnt fixes the price. ! look upon that por
ton OF the bill as beyond all doubt
unconstitutional. We are required to pay
fifty cents per cubic ward for excavation
and fifty cents for embankmcnt. or one dol
lar per yard for removing the earth from
the bitches to the banks. The suddcnness
of the notice and the shortncss of the time
allowed, require lis 10 be prompt. for to
recognize or allow the liability of the city
for one foot of the work is to concctlc its
liability for enormous and unknown