The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1877-09-13
THE SUGAR SHEDS AGAIN.

Editor Democrat Council, I'm regular
session yesterday, resolved to take no actiors.
on the sugar shed question until they could
procure advice from 5he city attorney ON the-
following points:
Reso1Ued, That the City Attorney, B. n, Jopas.
be and is hereby requested to furnish for the
guidance Of the Council an opinion upon the fol-
lowing points connected with the sugar shed
question:
/. Whesher, under the law, the Council has the
right to declare OF it's own motion the forfeiture
of the privileges granted under ordinance 1928,
N. B.. tor exacting Illegal and excessive rates Of
storage2
2. And in the event that the City Attorney be
Of the opinion that the Council is so empowered,
whether said buildings on said forfeiture revert TO-
the city, as in case Of expiration OF charter O.
B. Whether, IL in this last event, the city will
become responsible TO the Bugar-Shed Company
portion OF the cost OF said buildings.
A. As TO whether shsre EXISTS any practicable
means OF forcing tho Sugar Shed Company TO re-
duoe ,ts storage rates TO the charter charges by
courts be necessary to that effect.
5. Whether, in the event of determination OF
the Council TO forfeit the charter judicial pro-
ceedings will be necessary, and il 30, what facts
cree Of forfeiture.
g. In Of such judicial decree Of forfeiture.
whether such judgment can make the city re-
sponsible in damages or for the cost or value of
buildings to the city be deoreed.
2. That Mr.. Jonas, the City Attorney, be re-
quested to advise the Council whether the facts
alleged against the Sugar Shed Company, pr any
Of the acts Of said company, have been violatiya
OF it's charter and are such as would entitle the
CITY to obtain forfeiture. Therefore,
Resolued fu,Laey, That until the Council shall
have received responses TO the foregoing in
quiries, all action relating to the Sugar Shed
Company be suspended.
Ncry I<, <h;oo4 4<, 4Ie. roF.rcr ~,
sugar shed subject IN tot0 to the city attor-
ney, but we do most strenrously object to the
subject being emasculated before presenta-
tion to that fanctionary. We claim that the
and considering tho great importance Of the
principles and the general interests involved,
it is beneath the di entity Of the servants and
representatives, of the people.
Why did not the Council ask Of the City
1. Did the Council that appropriated the
public levse to the private use Of a company,
and to the exclusion of the public, have the
right in law to do so2
g. If NOT, Is it not the solemn duty Of the
present Council to take back to the public
use the land Illegally appropriated?
8. Did the Council that granted the privi--
lege to ahe company to levy q tax Or subsidy
on sugar and rnolasses arriving at the levee
have Alright to.do so?
4. II not, Is it not the duty Of the present
Council to take every legal step to break down
the wrong, ana not leave TO individual action
| and cost this important work?
5. Did the Council that granted these privf-
leges and this donation of land have any
right to officially contribute to @ system OF
! monopoly Of the warehouse and drayage
business In the hands of few individuals,
and to the absolute detriment of established
private intefests2
8. If not, is it not the duty OF the present
Council to- 80 act officially as TO protect and
defend the interests of general private In
duStry and enterprise as against illegal and
| oppressive monopoly
| Let US. not be, deceived, Mr. Editor, in the.
prosecution OF inquiry into this subject Of the
Sugar Sheds.
! The inquiries now proposed to the Council
lie at the bottom of, the whole matter, and il
| is simply amazing that the Council should
imagine for Cne moment that they are full
| filling their duties, or that the people will
think they are by instituting this emasculated
inquiry Of the City Attorney. BRUTUs.