The New Orleans Democrat. (New Orleans, La.) 1875-1876, 1876-04-27
CITY AFFAIRS.
THE ETERLaSTIN0 WHaRF QUESTION.
Facts Mnd Figures Against n M0dinca-
tion Of the Contract with ElIcr-
man L. Go.

~ tle uiStoIy Vi tne Clty, since con-
solidation, no department Of its admin
istration has presented itself as more
succulent bone Of contention than that
Of the wharves. To recite the various
phases which they have undergone, the
polemics they have excited. the out
rageous swindles they have engen-
dered. would require tho efforts Of %
| gigantic memory, and folios on folios to
write them upon. A short time after
the inauguration OF tho present city
administration. this same question
OF wharves was resuscitated, and
whether judioiously or not, it
was decided that tho terms offered
| by Messrs. Ellorman u Go. for u lease
of the wharves for five years were most
| advantageous. On the part of the
| advocates OF the lease system deter
! mlnntiOn was manifested that routed
/ the supporters of the spasmodiG method
Of collecting the wharf dues directly by
! the city. TO Messrs Ellerman 81 Go.
| tho lease was finally adjldicated for the
| term named, and on condition that they
should assume the payment of the &Gs2.-
900 outstanding wharf bonds and inter
| 'St. TN'.''N uiiN W SlfHlfttlnL oWHfIS 1bf
| illegal wharfage charges. and a monthly
sum of $500 to be- pnid TO the.aity to
defray certain expenses Immediately
connected with our wharf system.
| The lessees were besides bound
| by their contract to keep the
wharves in good repair, and to
secure n faithful compliance with
| their agreement they were required to
furnish security in the sum Of $780,
% sum not at all extrayagant when the
magnitude OF the contract is considered,
aud which their determined efforts to
obtain it seemed to justify.
Now, after experimenting for nine
months, Messrs. Elerman * Go. come
before the Council to declare that they
arc unablot to comply with the provisions
OF their contract, unless the city shall
extend their lease for two years. and that
they be relieved Of tho payment Of the
monthly sum OF $500, after the first
year. There are other propositions
which are passed upon, however, be
cause they affect the city only tempo
rarily. The inability Of the contractors
to comply with their obligations is
based on the fact, plainly stated, that,
from the first OF July last, the date a.
which they assumed their responsible
ties, to the 1st of April inst, they have
disbursed $3.50. i92 30, including for re-
pairs Sl34,211 q, monthly payments
for police. lighting and salaries, $22, 500 ::
paid to steamboat owners, $14, ,666 cost
Of collecting wharf dues and incidental
expenses, $i4, 900 redeemed wharf bonds
$92, 900; interest on the same. $19, $50 90,
against receipts amounting to $17O, ,6S7 43,
leaving deficit Of t11s,4t5 Sc This
deficit Is ascribed to- the loss OF revenue,
caused by the diversion OF trade and to
the appreciation Of the wharf bonds to
be redeemed by them from fifty -four
cents to over seventy cents, at the date
OF their petition. In exchange for the
extension and modification requested,
Messrs. Ellerman ~ Co. offer to reclaim
ground in front Of the city equal to three
squares. which will be worth to the city
from $3.50. 900 to 100000.
On principle. and Notwithstanding the
brilliant promises Of the contrac, ors.
our city administrators might. without
hesitation. decline to entertain the
who are not entitled to any
apology for their apparent want
OF foresight with which, by the
way, the city has nothing to do,
But upon carefully considering the
figures Of the lessees, it is seen that
the deficit they complain Of is not equal
to the expense incurred for the repairs
they have done to the wharves. At the
time the contract was entered into be-
tween them and the city, it was noto-
riously known that our wharves were in
n very dilapidatcd condition, and tit
would be idle to say that the lessees
had not made careful estimates Of
the probable cost Of such repairs. 1t
would be as idle to suppose that
they were acquainted with the gen
eraf depression Of business, which,
under the most favorable circumstances,
did not promise to improve, except
very slowly, and as the wharycs offered
convenient moorings to the vehicles Of
commerce on the Mississippi. Hence
the outlay of S13l,3l1 n for repairs
to the wharves must have been
Anticipated and cannot be included
OF the first year, but should be averaged
in those Of the five years. Practically
the requested release from the payment
Of the $500 per month for police, lights
and salaries would amount to the pay
ment by the city OF the extra
ordinary portion Of the wharf repairs,
that is the rebuilding OF those which
were entirely destroyed for the total
sum the leseeS seek to burden the city
with, during the last four years OF the
contract is $120,00O, to which might be
| HtIIsU NbUbbb IoI bUe Two years eAisH-
sion. BY this operation the le5ees would
save $1sO,O0O, or q sum almost equal to
the total deficit, which they expect to
sustain during the first sixteen months
Of their contract 1t must be borne
in mind that the main cause Of
the leasing Of the wharves was
the inability Of the city, ow-
ing to financial embarrassments. to re-
construct and repair its wharves, and the
proposition OF Messrs. Ellerman was ac-
cepted principally because they offered
to do what the city could not do. Other
wise the leasing OF the wharves might
not have been deemed advantageous.
In short, up to the lst OF April, we find
that the lessees have expended $l34,-
211 27 in works absolutely necessary to
the successful carrying on of their busi.
ness, and which they will not be called
upon to perform, only in a small pro-
portion annually, to keep the wharves
in repair In fact it is first outlay not
liable to occur again, and their situa-
ton, considering that the deficit