New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1876-02-18

ODorated the cOrpOr1t1Ons 0nUo S...;L1~
fulfill its requirements, - fes q t;n,s
therefrom, in order to obtain from tne osste
the compensation and smeluments unaeE
the charter. In other words, their success
sors have since kept alive ana Cesrlou on
the operation of the company without iul.
filing the requirements OF the cnsFtet. gu!
expending . sum equal 10 INC Soatra %
p gains resulting from the fraud and
burden of tho original contract. 1t will be
seen nv the statement annexed to this re-
mort that the company has built equiv
sient in number Of yards to about
500, 900 cubic yards OF levees. costing
them about $l.995,0o0,. and for which
in cash 81, 969 $50. and further claim
a balance Of &l,7OO,693 IS. This statement
in itself carries the strongest reason for a
prompt modification of the administration
of the levee interests of the State.
The company availing themselves of their
Interpretation Of letter elected by them
from Mr.. A. p. Field, Attorney General, OF
the tenth October, 1874, build or attempt
to build annually levees only to the amount
of the collections of the State levee tax
which may be furnished them ut the rate
fixed by Law formerly sixty. and now ntey
cents per yard, while the amount PAID Dy
them according to the statement rendered,
averages no more than thirty four and one
half cents per yard; under this construction
and operation of the act, the company
bpiIt only to the amount of the tax n ceived
by them, a cubic yard for every fifty cents
actually received, each yard built costing
them on an average say thirty-hve cents per
yard. This alone. calls urgent attenton
r. the enormities of the sO-called contract.
Were the money paid by the State applied
directly to the building Of the levees by con-
tract without paying the company nearly
ffty per cent for merely supervising, nearly
twice the amount of levee work could be
done with the same sum, a. is now per
formed with the money when paid to tho
Levee Company.
The extravaganza made apparent by the
showing hereinbef0re made, ia not the only
iRordinate expenditure entalled Dy inc *
istance of the company; over ana ABOVE tne
levee tax the State pays annually out OF
the general fund for salaries OF engineers,
etc. the enormous sum Of about $4O,OOO
Even did the building of the ievees oy
the Levee Company. not practically entail
q gratuity by the State to the Levee Com,
pany of at least fifteen cents for cuolc yard
and the burden Of paying 90 many accounts mans
the less in the opinion of your committee
objectionable because utterly inefficient in
accommodating the protection necessary and
seeminely intended to be afforded by the
original act under which the company holds
its legal existence. The company Is wholly
unable to protect the alluvial region rs 1t
first proposed to do.
The Levee Company does not even
pretend to be able to give that Protec-
out the State required to save
them from the disastrous consequences re-
sulting from overflow. The history of the
past few years lie go full of distressing de-
tails of destruction caused by the floods a.
to require no amplfcation at the hands Of
your committee Even the most casual re-
view of the general condition OF the lands
and properties in the region comprised
within the levee system during the years
1871, 1872, 1873, 1874 and 1875 leads to the
conclusion that where during any of said
wears there has been any fl sod which hat
but q test upon the levee system that there
has been afforded no general practical bene
fit from the operations of the Levee Com
psny.
The Levee Company may possibly show
q few isolated cases of local protection, Ou'
this can afford no plea of compliance com
mensurste with the purposes OF the orlglna
epactments, nor in any manner cOmpen
sating for the value of the payments made
to the company.
Besides the utter impotency of the sys
tenn in building levees, it has proven value
less for the purpose of repair.
Your committee has been able to elliott NJ
evidence, either directly or Indirectly. show
ing the Inauguration by the company OF thai
general system of repairs required to keeI
up the present levees, rs proposed IN INT
original enactment.
Your committee have therefore been forced
to the conclusion that the levee system. al
%ha I ia
ous extravaganza, inefficient and rulnOus
afforGing no means of construction and
tending to prevent the repairs necessary II
keep up the levees already in existence. anG
calling, therefore, for prompt Legislative
action.
Before inauiring into the wisest means Of
furnishing, by new laws, all the protection
to the ailuvial lands possible in the present
disturbed condition of the finances of thu
State and compatible with proper dls
tributiOn of the funds, your committee
deem it well to express their opinion as tt
any supposed legal obstacle resulting from
the seeming contract with the Levee Com
pany.
In the opinion of your committee neither
the original nor subsequent enactmentt
partake of the cOntractual character re
auired to fix upon the State legal Obliga
ton to make use of the superfuous machn
cry of the Levee Company for future work
As the original act only required the
building by The Levee Company Of the
levees under the direction of the commits
sion of engineers, it would seem to be pure
ly optional with the State to continue t.
designate further work to be done by the
Levee Company.
Even were this conclusion incorrect youl
com mittee is of the opinion that the State
is free to determine any system which may
be deemed best for the future, because o.
the failure of the Levee Company to carry
out the burden imposed by the law under
which it holds its existence.
Your committee consider that the State
even were it formerly bound in law OF
equity by the original or subsequent enact
ments, ia relieved Of any obligation to alb
stain from resembling the same
The matters in which, in the opinion Of
your committee, the company has omitted
eral neglect of furnishing the protection
pointed out by law, are specifically as fol
lows:
First-By the failure of the Levee Com
pany to comply with the requirements o
building the 100000 cubic yards per an
mum as required by paragraph four of act
Nos. 90 and %, of February 1871: notwith
standing, the company allege their exemp
ton by the amendment in paragraph lou
of section two of act No. e OF March, 1873
page eighty nine.
This assumed exemption, however vel
founded, could only result from the act
1873, and take effect from that date, Will
during the period preceding the year ls13
had the Levee Company built the 3,OOO0o
cubic yards required. In fact, by their owl
showing. only 1885,, 1871 yards we're built D
them before the passage of the act OF lo7:
while at that date at least 6, 100000 OF yard
should have been completed.