New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1875-05-25
HYPoTHECAT10N OF THE wHARvEs.

lease out and deliver to private holde,
the possession AID right to collect til
tax upon our wharves. That such
scheme should have had the support I
attorneys, of holders of complimentar
bonds, and of the pet bondholders VIII
wish to exchange city securities for prop
erty, occasioned US no surprise. That
Democratic city administration shout
become the advocates Of turning til
care of foreign shipping--for we hav
none of our own-to aprivate contractor
would have occasioned US astonishmen
had not that principle been extinguishe,
by the cooperation policy of the past fev
years.
! The reasons given for the advocacy are
l. There had been great decline il
wharf receipts.
2. The wharf revenues had been divert
ed from wharf repairs and rebuilding ani
applied to other corporate purposes, while
all the heavy expenses of putting thu
wharves in order have to be provided for
3. The bonds based on the wharf reve.
nues have not been and can not be pro.
vided for from the probable wharf reve-
nues.
We take these causes an detail:
l. There has been great falling off in
the wharf receipts This result is OBJ
viously attributable to the decline in the
commerce of our port Most commercial
philosophers reasoning on this decline of
port receipts, would say our competitors,
the Eastern ports, who get what we lose,
must have some advantages over US.
What can they be? A comparison would
have been made of the transit and trans
fer charges in such cities, and New
Orleans would be put on as fair
footing as any of her rivals. Its
wharves without trade are worth very
little moro than a carriage without the
possibility of horses. 1t would seem
proper to prepare for reduction of
charges upon transit commerce. All the
improvements in connecting and transfer
ring trade would be adopted. Merchants
and stevedores, and tow boat companies
would be entreated to reduce rates of fac
forage; but when individuals have done all,
The city authorities may be called upon to
10 something, and this may be to abate
Or even abandon the wharf charges on
through goods. Whether this will be
is question to be decided
hereafter but if this proposition of the
of Commerce is successful
he city will for term of years lose the
'ower to reduce the wharfage tax. The
Individuals who will hold the right to
ollect this tax can not be expected to
emit or reduce it, for they will have
lothing else to fall back upon for indem-
ity. The city may impose the cost of |
'harf repairs, as it does that of street |
nd levee repairs, upon other subjects of |
axation. To show the possibility of some
1ch reduction let us give an instance of
ne present pressure upon our commerce.
One line Of steamers now pays some
300 trip for each steamer. 1t petitions
II reduction, and even intimates that it
lay be withdrawn. Let it no! be for
often that within the past six months ten
: twelve ocean steamers have been with
rawn from, this port. Itmay be the future
olicy of the city to reduce the wharfage
such vessels rather than lose the ship
I'd the wharfage tax. Such policy would
; impossible with the right to tax ship
ng outstanding in the hands of indi-
duals who could have no public motive
afford the required reduction.
2. The charge that revenues pledged to
e liquidation of wharf bonds have been
rverted to other purposes is a grave
lputation upon the predecessors of the
escnt city administration.
We do not know that this devolves
on the public any obligation to make
cd this deficit any more than any other.
would seem an official dereliction by
lich those who permitted the perver-
n have placed themselves in the pre-
lament which the secretary of the mu-
'lpal treasury so narrowly escaped.
t what then? Is the city to cover up
s default? Are the taxpayers to bear
1itional burdens to protect these par
llar bondholders? The Administrator >
Commerce seems to think such an OBJ 1
alton exists, and advances the sug- 1
ton that "the city can be compelled tt
enforce the necessary taxation to o
ct" these wharf bonds. Does the Adj 1
aistrator propose to take the power RI
discretion Of laying taxes from the II
,islatnre and repose it in the hands of II
courts? Ia
the court to put an additional tax on Y
lses or labor licenses to make good the a.
cient Of wharf revenue? Cases may =:
found in which an executive agencies y
ing failed to enforce q tax, the courts g
e compelled them to do SO, but none in u
CHI court has assumed the power of 81
final taxation n
would seem important that the ad- ~
istrators should not act peremptorily az
his matter. The wharf bonds, as they
called, are a part Of the city debt. 81
the special fund dedicated to these m
idations has been perverted to other III
poses, about which We shall await the cl'
'onse Of the administration of Mayor pr
t., we should hesitate how we prefer til
guarantee some bondholders when tn
rs may not be provided for. 1t is to re-