The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1877-08-01


they were given the right to charge
twenty-five cents per hogshead and fifteen cent.
sugar were entitled to keep their goods undsI
the sheds, which, az we have seen. and az Wal
| admitted by your committee, was to be reasona
BILE time for removal besides the forty Int hours
; Company to keep sugar sheltered for twenty-fiv
cents and molasses for fifteen cents was exactly
measured by the time the owners thereof had q
right to demand that it should remain on the
levee. This right. though limited to about
forty-eight hours, was allowed by the
company without further charge, to be ex.
tended to five days. At the expiration Of that
time even the most unreasonable could not Justly
in the charter, for after the five days the com.
pany had more than complied with its obliga-
tons, and the sngar.owners obtained more than
they had right to demand. Not satisfied with
this, many continued to store their molasses or
sugar under the sheds, leaving it there for one,
two, three, and frequently even eight and nine
months, during sill OF which time the advantages
OF the shed and of the labor, watch and order
maintained at the company's expense was re-
ceived BY the owners OF the goods without right
to ask 1t or obligation on our part to grant It,
Nor was this all, for though no charter provi-
sion required 1t, the compin WAS expected TO be
and was held responsible for the safety OF the
sugar aud molasses placed beneath the shelter
ofits buildings, and in many paid for losses
and injuries claimed to have been suffered. The
charter required that sheds should be erected
and nothing more; the company were not TO
watch over the sugars, nor to watch and guard
It; they were not bound to furnish labor about it,,
nor incur the least responsibility in relation to it,
| yet all these advantages were given by is, and
we're received by the sugar men. Clerks were
employed to receive sugar, maintain the distiDc-
aon or lots and to deliver it. but nothing In the
charter required any such services TO be rem
dered. The benefits Of all this was obtained,
without obligation on us to furnish it,
and fair and reasonable charge was
therefore made. The commonest maxims Of
law and business were opposed to this, unless
some compensation should be made to those at
whose expense these benefits were obtained. The
Keeping OF sugar and molasses under the Sheds
after 1t had discharged it's obligations, was not
right which could be demanded, but an i0sposs
ton 1oticl, could not be suffered Experience soon
taught the company that these impositions would,
a. IT did. grow into such proportions 10 fill up
and crowd the sheds; for II is obvious that the
shaded and cool precincts Of the company's build.
inRs, free OF charge, were much to be preferred
to the close, hot, distant and dark warehouses,
where monthly charges we're made Under the
tfsct OF this imposition the stock Of the company
fell to less than half OF it's paid up value. and &C.
cumulsting debts threatened it with ruin. At
this point 1t was determined that all sugar and
moasses which was not removed after the reason
able time contemplated in the charter, but left,
Nth tut right, to be watched, protected and shell
",
forty cents per hogshead, and fifteen cents per
barrel, each month. There were, and there are
still some, who strUve and are still striving to
require the company to keep and care for their
sugar during twslvemonth II it please the
owner, or more, FOR twenty-five cents hogshead.
Several OF this number pursued the plain and
proper course open to them, and brought the
matter before the courts. A full and exhaustive
opinion was given in the case OF Samuel Nc
Cellan W. New Orleans Sugar Shed Compan, !"
In which it was determined that the company
we're entitled, after the reasonable time of Eve
days, to the additional charges of forty cents per
hogshed, and fifteen cents per barrel per mouth.
That decision. OF which a copy ACCOMPANIES this
paper, concludes as follows:
"Bnt it does not seem to me that the Additional
tariff imposed by the company and complained of
by plaintiff, Is III violation Of the contract with
the city OF New Orleans. The sugar sheds are
built up IN the public levee they were bnilt for the
purpose OF providing better shelter for partic-
ular staple product there landed The city in
granting the privilege imposed the conditions
that it should be Afforded for twenty five cents per
hogshead. But the company fixed tariff for
other services than sheter-for labor in ren,ov.
ing sugar and for assuming the responsibilities
OF warehouse owners, for giving warehouse re-
ceipts and becoming responsible for the sugar
and molasse.
81 think that the plaintiff would have the right
to demand shelter alone for the charge fixed in
the contract.
"The city reserves its. police powers over The
spaces occupied by the sheds, and may cause the
sugar to be removed IL the place bee Jmes OBJ
struoted, SO that the public have lost none Of
their rights to the use Of the quay.
The plaintiff files several afidavts to show
that the charges are exorbitant. One or two |
owners OF warehouses say that they would be |
willing and glad to receive sugar and molasses |
on storage at . lower rate.
4" Ii this be true there is no reason why they |
should not get the storage. The defendants |
charter gives the company no exclusive right to |
receive and store sugar aud molasses. The con-
tract with Fleitas did not contemplate the erec-
ton OF sheds, and the sheds were not erected to |
take the place OF warehouses, but as a substitute
for tarpauins and mud.
"If. however, besides furnishing the shelter
by the provisions OF the grant OF |
the city, and if after complying with the citys
regulations for the government of the public
landings, the company can and does furnish
additional facilities see no legal objections to
Its imposing additional charges 1t is nothiug to
say that such charges are ezorbitant II the per-
son complaining has no right to demand the ser
vice he cannot complsin OF the price. The tar IF
will regulate itself to the laws Of trade. If some
one else will provide the same labor and facilities
Ind assume tbs same responsibilities for less, the
charges will BOON be reduced.
ut is, therefore, ordered that the preliminary
Injunction herein prayed for be refused at
plaintiff d COSTS"
Ind the reasons given above constitute the an
,wer to your committees demand, by what au-
hority additional charges were made, after per-
ormlng the services required for the twenty-five
,ent and fifteen cent charge. The authority to
charge additional rates, resulted from the labor,
and services furnished by the COM
,any and received by the sugar owners. No
'harge prohibited by the letter or spirit OF the
harler mas ever been made. II any one was ag-
,rieved, II any unlawful charge was made, the
rue and proper course to pursue would have been
o the courts. Why have they not been called to
i'd those who pretend to any grievance at our
vas against sucn pretension? or 10 it because it
8 hoped, that resort to your Honorable Council
nay bring about litigation, injurious to sll, e1
ept perhaps. those who vainly imagine that they
nay thereby keep their sugar on the levees, enjoy
he benefits Of the sheds, for an indefinite period
Vithout expense to themselves save the
rst charge Of twenty-five cents The
ubic and yourselves are told that
he sheds have been an injury to the sugar