New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1876-06-21
THE WHARF QUESTION,

Inc sole authority OF corporation TO
collect charge for the use of wharf is
that the public has thereby been furnished
with what the common law calls an ease
ment for the exercise Of public right.
The city has therefore right to lay such
an aggregate charge upon the use of the
wharf as will make, maintain and replace
it. Nothing more. There is no right to
employ this occupation and monopoly of
the public right of way to and from the
use Of public highway, any more than
there would be to erect tollbar upon any
other highway without the authority of
law for the same. We may suppose the
practice Of deriving municipal revenues
from the performance of municipal SER
vice arose at period when the ideas
of the Common Council were derived
from the general authority of the monarch
to grant monopoly of any public au-
thority. The imposition of tax on COM
merce relieves to that extent the tax on
property. If it should cost five millions
to pay the expenses of the city, whatever
part could be imposed upon the foreign
capital employed in commerce would be
paid by the producer or consumer of the
product carried, according to the compe-
tition abroad for the cargo. The prop
erty holder of the city would be relieved
of taxation for the support Of the city to
the extent of this excess of wharf taxes
collected from commerce above and be-
yond the cost of making, maintaining and
the wharves themselves. Such is
the doctrince of public law and political
principle. 1t applies as well tothe tax
on the public markets. In both cases
there is an undue and unjust tax upon
the consumption and labor of the people,
and corresponding exemption Of prop
erty from its just share Of the public
burdens We may suppose that when
New Orleans held the only key of the
river she might impose any rate of transit
tax on the commerce of the river, which
would not discourage production. Pilot
age, towage, stevedorage, commissions,
drayage, storage, wharfage, were IN
avoidable, if not legitimate, charges
upon the trade of the valley. We may
also suppose that no citizen of New Or
leans would then have raised the ques-
ton whether one of those charges was
either wise or legal, because they were in
either case collected from foreigners, who
were not individually interested in the
question, since they charged all these
items to the consignee and consumer of
The cargoes.
The time has now come, however, when
The comparative time and cost of the
various ways to and from the sea deter
mines tie course of commerce. The i'm
ports and exports of Cincinnati or St.
Louis, which could once have been con-
lucted by no other route than that of New
Orleans, now have others opened to them.
The chief, perhaps the only advantage Of |
our water route is that it is cheaper than |
is competitors. While this is by no
means controlling condition of COM
nerce, it has deserved weight with GER
ain commodities of comparatively great
oulk and small value We refer chiefly |
o the trade in bulk grain, to which New
Orleans properly aspires. When we
ook to the wharf charges upon
be boats and barges of the river we find |
hat they were subject to tax at every
,ort and landing at which they touched.
Cincinnati and st. Louis have rescinded |
his tax, but if boat lands at the drift
tiles of Donaldsonville or the wharf boat
f Helena the officer of the port would
emand dollar or two for the privilege
nth as much cheek as if he came aboard
Or aid to pay the salaries of the Common
'ouncil. We have seen the federal tax on
steamboat, with the former taxes for
marriage in the regular trade between St.
.ouis and New Orleans estimated at six