The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1879-11-18

faeltnna We shall soc how The court views
the matter
MIR. BEHAN AND THE LEVBE SHEDS
Herewith we print note from Hon J. II
hehan, Administrator Of Commerce. purpurt
Ing " correct ee tain presumed errors In this
DEMOCRATS n'tice"n thIa euhiect Monday
morning We give Mr. Rehan'a oemn,lnina
ton In iul and trust our readers will read II
carefully
nFpAnlNENt nF COMMERCE j
City Hal NV n,epns,
| November ~ 1919. J
/ 10 the Editor Of the Democrat.
Allow mo 10 call ysur attention 10 n few errors
In your editorial of Monday the aasnninan In
| aRnt, Your deductions se.mtn ha made undo,
rernatuptinn Of tho present lease TO The wharf
laeaees, with the present high rates nf wharf
age nc part of the scheme. nv maIn n',iant Ia
| ta reduce wharfage 10 n nominal amount mud
| tn entirely relieve steamboats, md other o,aft
| ~ the eSient of from sac to ftF rnr tir, which
| they now pay for tarpaul'na, etc
/ aim ~ ashnHst thy the time fla urnannt non :
trnnt aSplrasl the amount reprt eenteI hy the
principal nna Interest. Of these bonds II con
alrueting The eheda. An Immediate reduction
* wharfage would naturally follow. The
amount 81 bonds unpaid Ct nnreleenl, u
amount 10 ahnnt s21nooo 'rtinoral. THE
| sheds hetween julia and fnstomhausa areats
| Onna build the Shade aud the wharfage could he
rednnad VI pc, cent or even more, ~ there
| than would ha sufficient IT, kaap them what -
| landings and shade IN repair The Aunreme
| Nnnrt has decided that only that amount nnnll
he collected now the abeCa haiug part and rpr@
oal of TIE wharves and landings, would come
under that laaann.
II is evident that IT In Ave years tho lesseea
could raanan the bonds nay the interest. nay
The steamboat Judgment. the aaaties nj em-
plnyaa ana The amount necessary tor the pnlie
AZ 81 of wi nF iapti
there must ha nm ample surplus. which aurrlus
could not only 30 applied 70 the building of the
sheds IN question, hut might Rlan he iced In
constructing them al other points. coy all the
steamship landings. refer you to an intarvlnw
had With fnHt reporter and nuhiahed In yopr
paper Of Tho second day Of November for tho
fsuree
All this. | euhmlt would he batter than I'm
r,airR tHx Oh commerce. tho burden ri Witch
would weigh heavily on the entire community
for twenty years.
In conclusion, Let mo say That do moi write
THE rs m argument but merely to correct what
! conceive - ha MISREPRESENTATION of my
"aeheme," Very respectfully,
j. HENRY REHAN
II ie hardly necessary to 40 over the detals
In which MI l,ohnn thlnlta we have mlsnppre
hondod his meaning. Let ,la oontina ourselvna
10 tho salient points. Mr.. Behane scheme
rontemplatns IN tho fret place aud this. we
think, hn will scarcely deny the reputation
of TIN" wharf bonds 81 far as concerns their
claim tn ~ lien upon tho wharf revenues.
lnlaaa this Reputation can he accomplished
It would be out Of the question to realize Mr.
l'ehana plan. the fret step In whici, Is tn
throw back tho wharf bonds upon the city and
to divert tha money now devoted To their re-
demptinn To tho construction of tho projected
lrvre ahrls4 II la fair To assume therefore
that MIR. l1ohail believes In the rroptiety aa
we'll as tho Feasibility Of this stop ant
M inquiry NJ once prosenta itself
TT MI 3ehan believes that the wharf bonds
do not constitutes valid lion upon tho wharf
revenues and that They can be Iegltlmately
dislodged from that position. why does not
he, aa the Representatives Of the people In this
apecal department OF their public interests
take measures To this eud2 1t Ia clearly his
duty to do go. These wharf bonds are q piinv-
ous burden upon orr commerce, In that thoy
involve the imposition Of very onero,Is and
oppressive charges on the shipp,ng of the
port. md II they have no legal standing. Mr.
Bohan Is of all others the public olIieial who
should come to the rescue by establishing that
fact, Without any reference to levee sheds or
tho modification Of tho contract with tho
wharf lasaees, and solely In its aspect rs a
public benefit and matter In the direct limo
of HIS official duty. this question of reducing
tho monatrols existing tariff Of wharfago-tax
appeals peculiarly and most eloquently to
Mr.. Behnn.
Our attitude is easily defined and under
stood. We claim that tho first etsp i'm Mr.
Rehan's project the necessary and indis-
pensable step without taking which the raat
of the plan Is utterly impossibIo-we claim
that this step Is one which 1t Is MI Behan's
without regard to any consequent action. IT
these wharf bonds are really not entitled to
their present position rs a lien upon the wharf
revenues, they ought to be dispossessed at
once and the shipping relieved OF the dis
trcssing burden OF taxation they are
now compelled to sustain. That Is the
first and most Imperative thing to
be done. Following that, and as q
logical sequence, the existing contract
between the city and the wharf lessees ex-
pres. and the whole matter returns to the
city. Then, and not till then, will 1t be in or
der to determine the right Of the city to Inn
pose q tax for the purpose of erecting sheds |
for the protection of merchandise. and OF
regulating the tariff for wharfage. |
All these prelimtnaries being perfected and
the charges being explicitly and denitiveIy
fixed, the city may for the first time con-
slider the policy of farming out the rev.
enues under their changed conditions, and
with their new bearings and obliga-
tlons. As to the awarding Of the contract
for repairs we feel no interest and express
no aspirations. That is a phase of the mat I
ter concerning which we cherish no solicit
tude whatsoever. But we repeat that the
levee shed problem cannot be solved In the off
hand fashion suggested by MIR. Behan, or in /
any other manner than the one we have just |
We desire the same end that Mr.. |
Behan desires We share all his views as to