The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1878-08-14
CITY COUNCIL.
now THE POLICE 10 no MN pA1D.
A Conflict with the Holders of Wharf
Epnpasaa AmfsasmafnaE.

| Il GTWAtES WEEN DEaE EEN6WGEa US WM@Fk
| Bonaa Anticipated
In the official proceedings of the City Coun-
Gil published In this mornings DEMOCRAT
there will be found q proposition from Mr..
Henry Ellertnann, the wharf lessee, Offering,
in lieu OF redeeming monthly ten wharf
| bonds, to advance $4,000 In cash. without
Interest, to be credited as payments under
| his lease for five months. In other words the
lessee proposes to pay fifty cents In cash on
| the dollar during the time specified, instead
of settling in wharf bonds. By the terms Of
his contract with the city, Mr.. Ellermann
(among other stip1lations) agreed TO take up
monthly ten wharf bonds, the market price Of
which has varied from forty three TO fifty one
| cents on the dollar.
| Although there seems to have been an I'M
| bonds (which are due only in 1881 from 81 to
| rs cents, in consideration Of their progressive
redemption in anticipation of their maturing,
| there is class OF holders Of these wharf
bonds who now claim their full face value
when they reach maturity, and they have So
| legally notified the city authorities The
wharf lessee claims that he based his calcutta
| tion at the time he entered into. the contract
| by rating the market value Of the bonds at
| fifty cents on the dollar, or thereabout and
| hence he accepted the proposition of the city
to pay for his privilege by taking up ten
| bonds every month, thus enabling the city to
cancel the outstanding bonds from time to
| time.
Mr.. ELlermann's obligation in this matter
| is entirely to the city, no agreement or con-
tract existing between him and the bond
holders, the city only acting as intermediary
| Ellermann furnishing che money for the re-
demption Of such as were accepted to the
number Of ten, as stated above. The propo-
sition lies over for week. but the disposition
It, and probably subsequent similar ones.
| The process would Immediately bring into
| the treasury $4,000, which would serve to
pay. the policemen, who are very much in
need at this moment.
| It will be asked what will become OF the
bondholders? This was answered at the City
| Hall by the statement that since the bond
| holders persisted in their pretensions to being
| paid the full face value Of their bonds in 1881,
the legality Of the issue of these wharf bonds
| would certainly have to be tested, with the
prospect Of a decision in favor of the city, for
nowhere can there be found any law author
izing the city to issue said bonds, which
must, therefore, be va1ueess.
| There are now outstanding about $4,000 Of
these wharf Improvement bonds, and this
| amount forms q part OF the sum to be paid by
| Ellermann for the lease OF the wharves At
| the rate proposed, fifty cents on the dollar,
| the city would therefore derive a revenue Of
| 1926. 900 in three years, to be applied to the
| uses Of the corporation instead OF taking up
| wharf improvement bonds now deemed
| illegal.
TAX COLLECTIONS.
| AS we intimated yesterday Col. Denis yes
| terday introduced a resolution In the City
| Council providing for the application in per-
son to delinquent taxpayers for the settle
| ment of their taxes. In his resolution Col.
Denis names Messrs. James s. zaeharie and
J. p. E1nicios rs the collectors Both these
gentlemen are courteous and energetic Off
cials, and whose long connection with the
Department Of Finance has given them q
| thorough acquaintance with the duties i'm
posed upon them. It will be their province
to thoroughly inform themselves Of the rea-
sons why delinquents decline or claim that
! they are unable to pay their taxes.
THE CONTRACT SYSTEM.
The introduction of q resolution by Admin
! istrator Mccartney to cancel the contracts for
cleaning and repairing streets, etc, gave rise
| to short debate.
| Administrator Cavanac charged Admins
| TRAITOR McCaffrey with presenting the resolu-
ton for the sake OF bunGOmbe, and argued
that 1t was surprising that Mr.: McCaffrey
should offer such resolution, when he had
approved of all the bills Of the contractors
since the beginning of the contract system.
| Mr.. McCaffrey defended himself by saying
that he had on two occasions refused to ap-
| prove Of the bills, and that II he did approve
of them it was because Of the character Of the
specifications, which made it impossible for
the attention of the administrators. both Off
cially and personally, to the imperfections Of
the specifications and of the system, but OPP
position on his part would have made him
appear factious. The system required him to
point out the failure of the contractors, who
| would comply with his directions in one
| locality at the expense of another The am
biguity Of the specifications did not authorize
| him to refuse his signature to the bills of the
| contractors.
| The matter lies over until next Meeting