The New Orleans bulletin. [volume] (New Orleans [La.]) 1874-1876, 1875-06-13
PORT CHARGES.
LEGAL OPINION OF W. W. KING.

PORT CHARGES.
LEGAL OPINION OF W. W. KING.
Having called my attention to communities
ton from Judge Howe, published in the Pasd-
ystne Of the 18th inst, and having requested my
communication, submit the following:
In giving statement Of the charges to which
| the steamship City Of Havana had been subject
ed, Judge Howe includes an item Of 1855 tor
wharf and levee dues. The Judge proceeds to
"Now, stated at the Chamber, and still
| affirm, that all these exactions and annoyances
| are unlawful, and it should be matter Of morti-
6cation to every citizen Of New Orleans that
Messrs. Alexandra Sons, or any other ship
owners, should be 30 pestered and preyed upoa. -
80. The wharf and ievee duty Of Is cents per
ton was declared illegal by the Supreme Court OF
the United States in Cannon vs. New Orleans 20
Wallace, 579."
The Judge was evidently under misapprehen-
sion, both as to the circumstances under which
| the charge was imposed, and also Is to the de-
cision OF the United States Supreme Court in the
Cannon case.
The charge was collected under an ordinance
| passed by the City Council on the 18th day Of
January, 1875. This was passed subsequent to
the decision in the Cannon case, and therefore
The decision could not have related to it.
The decision was given in relation to an ordi-
nance passed in 1853, to the following effect:
| "From and after the first day Of January,
1858, the levee dues on all steamboats, schact
shall moor or land IN any part Of the port Of
| Ne,c Orleans shall be fixed as follows: Ten
cents per ton il in port not exceeding five days,
and five dollars per day after said five days shall
have expired; provided, that boats arriving and
departing more than once IN each week snail pay
| only seven cents per ton each trip . s.,.,,
| In reference to this ordinance, justice Miller,
as the organ of the court, says.
cit is urgued in support OF the validity OF me 70
ordinance that the money collected under II Is
only compensation for the use of the wharves
| which are owned by the city, and which nave
been built and are kept in repair by the city cor
poration. - >.
"Under the evidence in this case Of the condi-
ton Of the levee and banks OF the Mississippi
River within the limits Of the city, to which the
language of the ordinance must be applied, this
contention cannot be sustained. 1t is in PROOF
that of the twenty miles and more OF the levee
and banks Of the Mississippi within the city, not
more than one-tenth has any wharf, and that
vessels land at various places where no such
accommodations exist. The language OF the
ordinance covers landing anywhere within the
city limits The tax is, therefore, collectibie for
the river, without regard to the existence ct the
wharves. The tax is also the same for vessel
which is moored in any part OF the port OF New
Orleans, whether she ties up to wharf or not,
or is located at the shore or in the middle OF the
river. tax which is, by its terms, due from ell
regard to the place where they may st-p,
whether it be in the channel Of the stream, or
out in bay, or landed at q natural river bank,
cannot be treated as a compensation for the use
of a wharf. This view is additionally enforced,
it. as sta ed by counsel for the plaintiff, in their
argument, the Supreme Court of the State has
decided that under the act OF 1843 OF the Louisl-
ana Legislature, no wharfage tax or duty can De
levied or collected by the city.
"We are of opinion that upon the face OF the
ordinence itself, as applied to the recognized
condition of the river and its banks within the
C ty, the dues here claimed cannot be supported
as q compensation for the use OF the citys
wharves, but that it is q tax upon every vessel
which stops, either by landing or moorlng, IN
the waters of the Mississippi River within the
city of New Orleans, for the privilege OF so
landil mooriDg.
Gin saying this we do not understand that
this principle interposes any hindrance to the
recovery from any vessel landing at wharf or
pier owned by an individual or by municipal or
other corporation, a just compensation for the
use Of such property. 1t Is docti inc too we'll
settled, and a practice too common and too
essential to the interests Of com merce and navl-
Cation to admit of doubt, that for the use OF
such structures, erected by andtrtduM enter
prise, and recognized everywhere as private
property, q reasonable compensation can be
exacted.
sNor do we gee any reason why, when city
or other municipality is the owner OF such ST. NC
lures, built by its own money, to assist We sells
business the city should not be allowed to exact
and receive this reasonable compensation as well
rs individuals.
1--WE are of opinion that the ordinance under
which the levee dues were assessed upon the
plaintiffs vessel is unconstitutional and void"
The ordinance under which the steamer City OF
Havana paid Is as follows:
.Sec j. Be 1t ordained by the City Council Of
Ne,c Orleans, That as a reasonable remuneration
for the facilities furnished by the city to com.
merce, such as building and keeping in order the
wharve g. piers and levees, and other port ex-
penses, all vessels availing themselves Of such
facili les shall be subjected to the charges here
inaft named, taking the tonnage Of said vessels
as the most equitable and only practicable form
Of making the charges uniform, in relation to the
size and capacity of the vessels, and as the best
means Of determining the amount which should
respectively be paid by each vessel:
preceding sections shall be exigible only from
such of said vessels as shall land or moor at the
wharves and piers furnished by the city Of New
Orleans"
the United States Supreme Court in the Cannon
case which shows that the charges levied under
this ordinance are illegal or unconstitutional.
On the contrary, the opinion expressly recog-
nses and defends the validity OF such charges as
are imposed by the ordinance.
N. B-The foregoing opinion is enlightened
if it be true, as you say, that the charges for
wharfage are less in New Orleans than IN the
other great cities of the Union, trading dir ectly
on the ocean, and that it is not possible for the
wharves to be kept in order and the debt Of over
s7OO, 900 already contracted in building wharves
to be paid, without charges at the present rate.
". w. K.
Some years ago, an eccentric genius, the Rev.
Thomas P. Hunt, used to give temperance lee
lures. One night he announced that he would
lecture in Easton. Now, temperance was not
in favor among the male portion of the burg.
The women, however, were all in for the
night not man showed himself in the hall.
The benches we're pretty well filed with women,
though, and Hunt commenced but, instead OF
temperance, he put them through on the vanities
of dress, etc. They wore great stuffed feather
sleeves then. They the sleeves-caught it,
then their tight lacing, and 80 on through the
whole catalogue Of female 70 lies not q word
ahnnt tamnerance And the Laden went home