New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1875-05-22
MIR. 8. HOWELL no THE REscuE.

NIB. 8. HOWELL TO THE RESCUE.
| The prompt arrival of Mr.. S. Howell tc
the assistance of the spectators who
tempt our corporate powers to relieve
themselves of the debt interest in orde,
that they may have more money to run
the administration, adds very little to the
justice of the demand or the force of the
argument
Mr. Howell has been, we believe, in some
antecedent era intrusted with our city
finances as controller and treasurer. He
has been constructively present at laying
the corner stone or putting on some of the
coping course Of our present debt.
The advice Of this fnancier chimes in
admirably with the confederacy between
the bondholders and the Council. He ex-
| horts the immediate sale of the few fran
chises in monopoly which remain. Es-
| pecially would he close out the lot of
wharves and waterworks to a few pet
bondholders. But while this distinguish
ed tinancier is no doubt good at adding
and subtracting and inspecting vouchers,
be evidently left college without taking a
course either Of political economy or con-
stitutional law.
Mr.. Burke, with characteristic sagacity,
perceived that the argument in favor Of
selling out these frau chises for the reason
that the Administrators can not conduct
them as we'll as individuals would dis
pense with the Administrators altogether
The splendid success of the wharf, mar
ket, gas and water contractors might soon
be followed with letting Of the few du-
ties remaining to the Council, SO that
there would be no offices, no salaries and
no patronage. The city would be gov
erned by contract. Here is how Mr..
Howell gives away the Administrators:
Many persons object to leasing public |
property. but they know little Of its NAN |
agement by the corporation. The city, in |
every instance Of lease, maintains y su
pervisiOn over the property, passes laws.fOr
the government of the lessees, and in every |
form must be obeved or else the purchaser
is liable to be put in default.
Thus he would wheedle the people back
into the hands of Messrs. Labatut & Co.,
the memory of whose corporate inapti-
tude is yet extremely green in the memory
Of those who paid the water rents and
oeheld the fires of that halcyon period.
In the advocacy of this sale of the right
If taxation it Is said, "There is much
opposition to the collection of levee dues
~ the city" This is followed by the
mysterious assertion that ''you can not
trike one revenue from the city without
reating another" Celia depend, as our
french friends say. 1t is very frequently
be case that the reduction or even repeal
f a tax SO stimulates the consumption of
given article, or SO improves the ca.
acity Of the producer, as that not only
one revenue but several dozen reve-
ues may be stricken off without creating
theirs in their place. This, Mr.. Howell
lay not perhaps be aware, is the whole
rinciple Of free trade protection, as es-
lblished by Sir Robert Peel. It is to
,rike off the revenue from corn or cotton
ntirely, to admit raw material and food
uty free, and rely upon the enhanced
oility Of capital and labor to support the
overnment by the increased income from
her revenues. So the doctrine Of Pro-
ssor Howell is by no means orthodox,
1r is his dictum entitled to adoption. So
UGH for the profe ssor as doctor of po-
ical economy
His theory OF constitutional law is :,
ually unsound. In advocating the lease -
the wharves, it is affirmed that there i
n be no lawful limit to the exactions of =,
e city or of those who purchase the =,
hit OF taxing commerce in our port 1t 81
said :,
An impression prevails that by the late "
Cisi0n Of the United States Supreme IN
urt the city is limited to charging dues
defray expenses only. l do not under N
md the decision to be so, but if mistaken,
~ will not the law apply to .towage as tn
il as wharfage, and why viii it not apply t th
wharves in Philadelphia, New York and ~
ston, that pay good revenues to the en-
uerS. =,
We may caution the reader that this is OF
the obiter dictua of ustice Howell of our ~;
lte Supreme Court. He will not there at
e, be held responsible for it's doctrines po
Q decision Of the Supreme Court of the no
ited States, referred to in the text all
oted, limits the right of the corporation
tax shipping for the use of the wharf co
y. The reasoning is this The naviga- co
waters Of the United States are open sy,
the use of all citizens The right to ga
aboard or ashore is the same on the on
nt Of New Orleans as at any plantation pla
the river The citizen using this right for
yht be tresrasser on the lands of an WI
er in SO doing. but for this he would an
responsible in damages without any wi
itation of the personal right. New Or SCI
rs, as proprietor of the river front, alb
s what another proprietor may. She EN-
cts certain structures as an easement or ces
ility for the exercise of this personal VIII
hit IN the citizen. For this service she dat
a right to charge adequate compensa- ha,
4. as she might do for the use of a pu
yboat or bridge. This adequate Ca
lpensation for the use of the wharf will Ba
such charge assessed upon the ship CT;
g using the wharf as will maintain and alb,
lace the wharf. The most grasping mo- to
olist, aided by the most cunning attor- bre
, can not extract from this service to prf