The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1879-05-16
DIR WHARVEs.

About ten years ago q million OF dollars OF
bonds were issued by the city, at eighty cents
On the dollar, in payment OF certain contrao-
ters, who undertook to reconstruct the
wharves Of the city. These bonds were issued
without authority from the Legislature and
with no other provision for their payment
than promissory pledge OF the wharf dues
to pay the same In ten years
Now, technically and under the law, this
Issue Of bonds was Illegal, and 1t was noto-
rious as fact that the Job OF constructing
the wharves was one OF great extortion and
fraud, the city agreeing to pay far more than
the honest cost OF the work.
Anyhow the debt thus created was. like all
the other debts of the city, to be paid out Of
the general fund. and there was no authority
or power In the city to pledge OF set aside the
wharf dues to pay the same
The fund derived from these wharf dues was
only applicable to the repairing, keeping up
and policing of the wharves. 1t had been
frequently decided by the Supreme Court Of
this State and Of the United States that no
larger sum could be collected from those
using the wharves than was necessary for
this purpose
1t became, therefore, a trust fund, which the
city could not use to pay ordinary debts, q
trust fund In which the shipping Interest.
then paying the same, had an interest and an
equitable right to see that 1t was applied
only TO keeping up the wharves.
But the city, exceeding and violating this
trust, entered into certain contract with
wharf builders, In which they bound the con-
tractors to collect and set aside about one
half Of these receipts to pay these bonds, and
to apply the remainder To other objects
equally foreign to the special object to which
such dues were applicable, leaving but a
small amount to use for the only legitimate
object Of such exactlons, to wit, the repairing
and keeping up the wharves. The contract
ors, In assuming such obligations. no doubt
found 1t to their interest, and the holders Of
the bonds profited therefrom. When all the
other bonds were greatly deprecated these
wharf bonds maintained specially high rates
because OF this condition of the contract, and
the lien on or pledge of this sure and certain
security.
But what was the result to the city and to
our shipping which had to pay these dues
Simply to abstract from and reduce TO a
small and inadequate sum the amount needed
for the repair and keeping up the wharves
and for the extension Of wharf facilities.
The DEMOCRAT has uniformly contended
that these bonds were not legally lien on
the wharf dues, and are Of doubtful legality
In their original issue, and decisions OF our
Supreme Court have been rendered affirming
such illegality; and we think 1t Is favor
able time for our city administrators to
assert the right OF the city as against
the contractors and the bondholders to
compel the latter to pursue their claim
like all other bondholders against tho
city, and as the lessees complain that they
have lost twenty-five thousand dollars upon
their contract, they will doubtless be quite
willing to restore the custody Of the wharves
to the city. whereupon the levee dues may be
reduced to rate sufficient only to maintain
the wharves and landings.
Lumber and timber Is now cheap, labor Is
abundant and contracts for repairs can be
made al low rates. Such action will tend to
reduce the burdens upon commerce, and place
the whole question upon a basis Of justice
and nnlliIy.