The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1878-01-12

lieve them from liability to cams for
services rendered. the tax or duty is laid
by the sovereign. The charge for the use
OF the whatves Ia made by the proprietor. and IL
is the same whether mad by the Stat'. y muni-
cipality or u private individual. The Keokuk
case.
The exclusive right to regulate and make inn
proyements tn the wharves. aud to lease them,
having been thus lawfully conferred upon and
OF the corporation, and not subject to divesti-
ture without due legal process and comuensa-
tion Therefor, as eontradistinIeu ne uished from q
public right, whiebmay be abreRaied by the
State at itR pleasure. The right to acquire, hold
and dispose of property though originally de-
not subject Is the absolute control Of that body.
The rule Hpon the subject" says Cooley. we
take TO be this: Where corporate p'.wers are
the State and. the oorporators, that the prop
erty which they are givea the capacity 70
ssanre eE Hnaer their their
and appsopriatsd to. other uses; II the state
grants PROPERTY TO the corporation. the grant
voked. Hhel rights acquired either by such
grants or by any other Legitimate mode in
which sneh corporation can acquire property
Const. Lin. 2s And another writer thus clear
~ defines tho distinction between the authority
fss ae j Sos snd 3 is sryse aS
ty Of the Legislature is in the nature Of things
the limitation is found In some peeu-
liar provision Of the constitution Of the State.
| But In It's proprietary or private character. the
theory ls thBt the poweTs are suppo ed not to
be conferred primarily or chiefly from con-
siderations connected with the government of
the Sthte at large but for the private advantage
OF the particular corporation as distinct legal
persont tlity; end as to such powers. and to
| property acquired hereunder. and contracts
| made with reference thereto. the corporation is
TO be regulated quo-sd hoe as q private corpora
tion. or at beast not public the sense that the
power Of the Legislature over 1t is 0mnip0-
tent" DillCn's Munic. Corp, sac. 8p5g.
1 The net of 1874 was q partial revocation OF tho
Il grant previously made TO the city, and was net
within the powsr OF the Legislature to make,
for IL 1t could revoke ths grant Hs to vessels.of
over 100 tons that were built In ~ particular
place it could revoke 1t as TO vessels Of any
tonnage that we're built ut any place. and thus
the Legislature would effsct the diyestiturs OF a
property or rights Of this kind arbitrarily and
the guise Of encouraging the building Of
water craft within her own borders IL
she can give tfia use OF the wharves free Of
charge to boats because they have been built
wi him the State. and 10 encourage that handi-
craft. she can likewise give them free OF charge
4 10 every vessel that Is manned by natives of the
State. In order 10 induce her citizers tn become
hardy sa iors and brave the terrors OF the
deep? The act under which the defendants
! claim exemption from liability TO the payment
OF wharfage. being Unconstitutional. 10 null
, and void, and Judgment was therefore. COR
/ rsctly rendered against them and the steam
boat Martha for the sum claimed by plaintiff.
Judgment affirmed. III