New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1871-04-28

: p IS
undsf Is 81 = y u y tNtlfs q
pr ~ INA, ~ - ~ ~ RI islatms
nov 81 ~ooeetion ulloWs my cents per
cubic yast, sfn6Gt jdSllble it, real value, and
fifty cent, fsrfambanknentA which also are
to bopaia fot ont Of tho drainage fund.
It l. ttue that political corporations are
the creatures Of tho legislative power Of the
Stste; yet, when established, tho State has
mo- power to enter into contraots for them,
whether By, act Of the Legislature Of other
wise; snd although the ordinance under
consideration seems to protest against the
assumption Of this power, it is clear that if
this ordinance goes into operation NO ques-
ton can ever be raised ~ to the constitu-
tionality or validity of the act, 20 far a. the
city Of New Orleans is concerned. The pro-
test of the Council in the form of declara-
ton that the Council reserves tho right at
any time hereafter to contest ct law or
otherwise the constitutionality Of the act, is
Of no value whatever. The company is not
required to agree to it as . condition pre-
cedent, and the city, having acknowledged
the contract by setting the company to
work according to the terms of the law, will,
of necessity, have been put in for the whole
contract without any reservation whatever;
and have never known or heard Of any
contractor with the city who would volun-
tarily abate one jot or title Of his contract
advantages, or who would not claim of the
city excessive damages, should it desire to
modify or abandon works which wero
found to be unnecessary or Mexpedient.
repeat that in the face of the facts adj
duced and the evidence presented, . per
sistence in this ordinance will be vol
untary and unnecessary payment to the
Mississippi and Mexican Gulf Ship Canal
Company of at least one million of dollars
which can be saved to the taxpayers.
Nor does the impolicy or injustice of this
ordinance end here. By the terms Of the
act of the Legislature, these drainage
works are to be carried on sin New Orleans
and ,Carrollton." In the ordinance the
phrase is, "New Orleans and environs."
The change Of phraseology is calculated to
mislead, and cause one to overlook the i'm
portant fact that the city of New Orleans
alone is made responsible and liable not
only to pay for the canals and levees con-
structed in New Orleans, but also for those
constructed in Carrollton, and without the
right or power of reclamation being any
where given to New Orleans in the act.
The plea of urgent and immediate neces-
sity, urged in the act, is not supported by
facts. Assuming. however, that the imme-
date necessity for entering on this work
does exist, this company is not the only one
able to commence operations at once. Any
other contractors, with adequate financial
resources, could get to work inside of thirty
days.
The cost of the canals and protection le-
wees at the price as fixed in the act is esti-
mated in a report by the City Surveyor,
made in compliance with call from the
Council, at two millions of dollars, and the
price at which, according to bis experience,
it can be done, allowing fair margin to the
contractor for profits, is from twenty-five
cents to thirty cents per cubic yard, or in
amount about one-third that required to be
paid to the Mississippi and Mexican Gulf
Ship Canal Company for the work.. An off,
cial statement of the cost of the canals,
about ten miles in aggregate length,
excavated by the drainage commissioners,
gives an average of little less than twenty
eight cents per cubic yard. One of them,
the Claiborne canal, three and a half miles
in length, forty-four feet wide and eight
feet deep, dug with dredgeboat through
the most difficult swamp in the rear Of the
city, filed with stumps and cypress knees,
cost only twenty-one cents per cubic yard,
including every expense except first cost OF
the dredgeboat. Include the dredgeboats,
and the cost.of those canals was less than
thirty cents per cubic yard. have verified
this statement by careful examination Of
the books Of the drainage commissioners.
This certificate and the report of the City
Surveyor are hereunto appended, as well as
the proposal of the New Orleans Dredging
Company. I further ask leave of the Coun-
Gil to publish, in connection with this mes
sage, the elaborate and exhaustive opinion
of the City Attorney, rendered in response
to request Of the Council that he would
examine into the censtitutionality of this
bill
To recapitulate, my objections to the or
dinance are these: ...,..
: The act of the Legislature on which it is
based is unconstitutional, and held to be 80
by the Council; it Il so pronounced by the
City Attorney, who by the charter is made
our legal adviser; and it is declared such in
the ordinance before US. o'
An acceptance Of any part of this con-
tract binds us for the whole, including the
drainage works in Carrollton-at least un-
less the reservation of the rights of the
Council under the contract, to modify it or
to contract with other parties, be previously
conceded by the company.
1t would render us liable to the extent Of
fifty thousand dollars q month, which we
have either to pay in money or in paper OBJ
legations. The former we are unable to do,
as our estimated current expenses are far
beyond our estimated receipts provided for
in the budget, and the latter would en-
barrass the Council and greatly depreciate
city obligations. ..
Because by recognizing this contract the
city gives away at least one million dollars
Of the taxpayers' money to q company
whose only capital consists of bonds of the
State issued to them rratuifollslv of which