The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1877-10-17

MUNICIPAL MATTERS.
THE CARONDEIET CANAL AND THE
BAYOU ST. JOHN.

Mayor Pilsbury is still vigorously engaged In
prosecuting his inquiries into the relations Of the
lessses Of the Csrondelet Navigation Canal with
the city OF New Orleans, in order TO ascertain II
possible, whether the great injury our drainage
system has sustained resulting from the mo-
nopoly. osn be remedied.
without entering into history Of the canal we
can say, without annoying our readers, that the
Supreme Court of our State decided, some time
previous TO the year 1858, that the Bayou
81. John was one Of The natural drains
Of New Orleans AMI that the company
could not. therefore, prevent the city from using
IL for the emptyng Of its sewerage waters. Our
worthy Mayor IL aware of this decision but labors
under the impression that q subsequent aot in
cooperating the Carondelet and Navigation Canal
Company, known az act No. "a of 1868, is In.
valid, owing 20 the fact that the Bayou st. John
Ia navigable stream, the uses of which could
not, therefore, be exclusively granted by the
State Legislature. The Mayor will find, a. we
took the liberty to say TO him yesterday, that the
Supreme Court of the United States, or the Cir
Quit Court 1--WE don't remember exactly whoh).
has already twice decided in the matter that
the Bayou St. john was not navigable stream.
Az that was the point made by the CITY
IN its defense against paying the t25,0OO
claimed by the canal company for damages sus-
drainage sene Il. sy se S he
IN violation OF the contract of 1885, the city had
topay Under order OF the court. But since the
acto 1858, the issue has never been made, II
we are correctly informed, on the question of the
bayou being one OF the natural drains OF the
city. This will doubtless be q strong point, but
IL ID not the onlv one.
The act Of 1853 approved March TO- which
seems to have been intended to whip around the
decision OF the Supreme Court by giving the
grant the color Of contract, provides that after
fye years subsequent TO the passage OF the act
the city shall not be permitted to drain into the
Bayou st. John, except for compensation to be
determined by etpefise. II authorizes "the
directors OF the company TO impose q fine not ex-
ceeding $5G' upon any person violating the pros
visions of the act recoverable before any court
competent jurisdietio thereby giving common
commercial corporation quasi judicial powers. II
also exempts the company from paying taxes on
anything connected with their business for fifty
years, the term Of their charter, which is 10
direct violation Of the State constitution as our
courts have decided in similar cases. In fact,
che act contains only advantages to the company,
without even semblanoe OF gntd pro que ia favor
OF the city or the state. These are. therefore,
the points, together with the main question, the
character of the bayou as natural drain, which
will be submitted to the city attorney for his
opinion.
Meanwhile Administrator Rengstortf has been
requested by The Mayor to refer to his assess
ment rolls to ascertain II the Oarondelet OanaI
Company have ever been as ssessea, and II not,
that the Board of Assessors be instructed to ap-
praise the value OF their property Immediately.