The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1878-01-17

act 10 regulate The bridges over the taylgablt
ranals In The city, and 70 appoint Keepers fD
said bridges the City Council 10 the contrary
| Notwithstanding
The particular provision under. which h
claims fs to he found In parasra ph 4 Of sec
ton y, already quoted giving to ,Iie depart
inent Of which be s the head the general s,i
| perintendenpp tf alt matters relating tU The
streets, sidewalks paysmepts and Syharves
aud The construction cleansing aud repair u
The same, the construction and repair u
| bridges and the dranage Of the city"
tion Jl he s1 'ls s pai has nrooeed wi
| dence to show that under the old charter the
| matters I'm question were under the control a
| the Commissioner Ut Streets and Landings,
| and that heretofore, under the present clafter,
| they have been under the control Ut the Adj
INVESTIGATORS or improvements who have pre-
cetled hitn In sfIlee.
Plaintiffs counsel have also argued that
these bridges ere parts of the roads OF streets
| iptendence, aud the evidence shows that they
| do perfect the continuity Of certain streets
across nnyigable canals.
| Upon the other hand. however n 10 shown
by the same witnesses introduced for the
plnintH that the bridges IN question being
across navigable canals, the opening and
shutting uf said bridges necessarily control !
| passage isp and down said canals, over .gl,leh,
| AZ we have seen the Administering Of Com
mefes Is vested with general sttuetintendenee.
| II Is quite evident that passage along the
streets ls interrupted when the bridges are
| open, aud that navigation OF the canals Is in
| terruptrl when the bridges ore closed, aud II
| the rights and powers Of the PARTIES tn this
| litigation were to be determined entirely with
reference to this question there night be some
| difficulty In reaching conclusion, Such,
however. Is not the case.
If the Language. Of paragraph 81 snc-
| ton had been limited tO vesting In tie
Administrator ~ improvements general
e,perntanflpnce over streets. sidnkalks, etc.
| Tho argument and etudite authority III tlis
| learned counsel would naply; but since the
| IN W maker went TN Va provide precisely the
| nature uf the control 10 he exercised over
bridges, II can hardly be said that any further
| authority j. to be derived. MS tn them, from
| the general language concerning Streets and
sidewalks
| H,presaio upits eat ereipais nHnri,ta Is q
maxim which seems particularly applicable tu
| this Ease The law gives to the plaintiff
general sn1perlntendence of a'l matters re, re-
| lating to tho streets,' etc, but, as to the
bridges. limits The grant to their "eonstruo-
| tlon and retar,' and 1t would appear from
| this that though bridges may be and doubt
| iess are, parts Of roads, as n question of civi
| engineering, yet that they were nod 81 con.
silered for lie purposes VI the city cfnrter by
| that whilst The Administrator Of Improve
le,ils WIS given general superintendenGe
over the one. Ills power over the other was
limited to constructing and repairing.
considered, which Is " much broader signiii-
cation 1t Is the question of the power ~ the
Council to control ths subject matter III this
litigation IT will bs remembered that the tie
fendant alleges that by ordinances No. 4o47, the
City Council dir, eted the transfer of the con
trol IT the bridges over uavgable cauals 10
the defendant, HnH that allegation Is sustained
bv the introduction of the ordinance In eei-
dence.
The first paragraph N section 's The ono
providing thnt the administration Of the gov
eminent and nffnts of tho city shall lie vested
in seven departments (s,ibprdnnth In exeeti-
tive power ~ the Mayor and the concluding
provision Of that paragraph IL that tie heads
Of those departments "shall have the admin
istratipn and especial control II tho same,
subject to the limitations imposed by this aot
or other laws, or the ordinances and resolu-
tons of tho Council"
IT, therefore. this language is ~ be- given
any effect whatever, the power Of the Admin
istraturs oven IN matters confesse1ly upper
tanning to their departments. may he limited
and controlled by tho action Ut the Council
and, % fortipri. must this be the case when
the limitation Ia imposed with reference to
matters Tho jurisdiction OF which, In the at-
sence of action by the Council, can be consid-
cred as sufficiently doubtful to give rise 10 lit
| igatiun between two considerations public off,
GERS each striving 10 do his duty and nothing
more
The court Is, therefore. Of opinion that this
proceeding should be dismissed ut the cost Of
the plaintiff and 1t Is so ordered.