The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1877-10-13
THE WHARFAGE SUIT.

greet interest, materially ana legally. Inc
old issues, which have occupied the attention
OF our courts, ever since the acquisition OF
Louisiana, to larger degree than any others
/ that have ever been iiuditfaffy discussed and
| decided, relative to the title, use and author
| ty over the leyees or batture of the Missis-
| sippi, Twill again come up for review In this
| case. The vast learning brought to bear by
the eminent jurists who devoted so many
years to the study Of this subject in the great
batture cases OF former years will have again
to be drawn on. Edward Livingston, Etienne
Mazureau, John r. Grymes, and others Of the
distinguished veterans of the bar thirty years
ago. and even Thomas jefferson, when ex-
President of the United States, taxed their
great abilities to the utmost to solve the mys-
teries and establish the true principles OF law
applicable to this most perplexing and vexa-
tious controversy.
In our jurisprudence this great batture
case has been regarded by iurists in
pretty much the same light as the old Schles-
wig-Holstein question has been viewed by all
the great diplomatists and statesmen of Eu-
rope-as question never to be exhausted or
solved. or even comprehended by the pro-
foundest intellects that have been engaged on
it. Lord Palmerston was once asked by
young English statesmen to expound this
case, which had been under discussion
during the whole period OF his long connec-
ton with the Foreign Office Of Great Britain.
Ii He replied, my dear fellow, thirty years
ago, there were but two men in Europe who
had ever been able to master the points in
volved In this Schleswig- Holstein question.
They were Baron Bulow of Prussia and my
self. The Baron Is dead, and have forgot
ten al about Il" Edward Livingston, in one
of his private letters, published in Hunts
Life OF Livingston made similar remark
In reference to the batture question, to wit
That Mazureau and himself were the only
two iurists who had ever mastered the issues
involved in the batture litigation, adding that |
he believed that Mazuteau understood the |
subject better than he did.
And now again the main points of this old |
litigation come up for consideration and ad- |
Indication. The party provoking these issues |
have secured the professional services of one |
of our Oldest lawyers, who has been largely |
engaged in the previous suits involving the |
legal points arising in this case and who is
more familiar with the whole history and
learning of this batture question than any
other member of the bar. We refer to Mr.. w.
w. King, who is counsel for the plaintiff.
The defendant, Mr.. Charles Morgan, whilst
not litigious person, is one of the stoutest
defenders Of what he regards his legal and
equitable rights, and spares no expense and
energy to resist any Infringement thereof
. Millions for defense, not a cent for tribute"
Is the maxim upon which he has acted
his long life.
This characteristic was strongly Illus
rated by legal incident which occurred
ew years ago, when Mr.. Morgan resisted
he portwarden tax of five dollars on one of
lis steamships, for which suit was brought
" the State before justice Il the peace, on
he ground OF its unconstitutionality, and, at
treat expense, took the case up to the Su-
IRENE Court Of the United States, and there
,btained final decision that the tax was UNI
constitutional, and thus arrested its future
xactfon In this State The case which has [
suggested these somewhat discursive re- {
marks arises on this statement of facts.
Since the acquisition Of the Opelousas rail- 6
Dad by Mr.. Morgan, he deemed it his inter-
st that his numerous steamships should be
moved on the right bank Of the river, then
yithin the corporate limits of the town of
.lgiers, instead of landing at the wharves in ,
his city. So he constructed expensive and :
ubstantial wharves, and abandoning the {
ity, his ships were laid up at these But,
, the meantime, Algiers, by an act of the :
legislature was annexed to New Orleans, :
nd the levee and batture front of the former :
ave become subject to the same laws and !
ontrol as those of the left bank, in the old =
ity proper. Now, Mr.. Elermann has a con- :
ract with the city to collect all the wharfage !
ues incurred within the limits of this CITY, !,
lie claims that, Ii ship owners can be allowed I
D construct wharves on the other side of the =
yer and refuse to pay him the wharfage a
ues, it would be a serious infringe a
lent Of the rights under his con- a
act, and would greatly damage him. n
n the other hand Mr. Morgan recurs to the
neient rights SO firmly established by the !.
eaty of cession, by the law and by long -
purse Of judicial decisions that all navigators :,
the Mississippi have the right to moor :
nd fasten their vessels to the levee, and to Il
ad and unload them, to dry their nets and .
occupy the same for other like purposes, =
nd that no fees OF dues can be exacted from 9,
lem for such use of the banks of the river,
1d that it is only when the police authori- =
es having the administration of the river, =
instruct wharves which are used by said r
,ssels to moor and land at, that a fee can be ..
gally required of the owners thereof Then =
, AYERS that the wharves at Algiers have =
zen constructed at his own expense, for his =,
vn use and convenience, and that the city p
lnnot in law and equity demand any fee for p
leir use. =,
To which the plaintiff and probably the ~
ty will respond that Mr.. Morgan had the p
ght and should have resorted to it, to COM p
81 the city to construct the wharves he ! !.
eeded and, until he put the city in default !,
herein, he had no right to appropriate the u
allure and construct wharves thereon for u
8 own use and refuse to pay the city the q