The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1879-06-29
: W. sg77g I7=7 55l -77717g7E7 r
WHARFAGE: "A E., !.

some Of our neighbors appear TO be con-
cerned about the position OF observation-disclosures
Burke upon the wharf question. One OF THESE
trnculently defends the sanctity OF the Whar1
bonds, and the other quite as valiantly con
tends for the wharf lessees, and both quote
approyingly the views Of the ex-Admlnlstra-
tor who opposed III the Council both the pon1s
and the lease.
Leaving our contemporaries to explain their
own views upon this question, and reconclle
their authorities as best they may, we Will
refer to our understanding Of Mr. Burkes
position ia the Council. and to the past and
present position Of the DEMOCR on this
question.
This Administrator, in opposing the lease,
produced the accounts to prove that bonds
and cash had been paid out within four years TO
the amount of over s2,oOO0OO for work that
he proved should not have cost $5OO,OOO. he
thereupon charged that the wharf bonds mad
but doubtful status, In law or equity; that
the excessive expenditure Of such vast sums
with 40 little work, smacked OF fraud or I'M
providence go grave as to cloud the paper
that represented 1t; and that these bonds ct
most should stand upon the same footing az
the other Indebtedness Of the city.
The Administrator cOntended that the
Council had no right to collect any higher
rate OF wharfage than was necessary to keep
the wharves In order, but even II the Oouno, :.
thought otherwise. the debt could be pa1a ~
within less time than the lease was maae til
and then the wharf dues could be reouceV ,
It Is but fair to say that the lesseeeeneI d
claim that their experience teaches ssenp ii
estimates OF the cost Of repairs ny a. Il
g. r %e.9 do oee n o alter the faet that the
DEMOCRAT has repeatedly fno wharfage r.
sunreme Court has decld< SOLICITED above
can legally be charsy .n 10 s40 n'''n a,
what Is absolutely 9ena ,snu - s.,u.o, a
tenance Of tbs whases Wouiu 70 sus'aneu lie
10 asce,sain wydld 20 necessary TO take !,
No tha eonrtsyT cost OF maintenance per :.
eintherthe aJ6oks q the wharf lessees for y,
o ,ras rom years OF their contract, or the "
ue pasyN Intelligent civil engineers or
esti ~ then take the tonnage taxed for :, ~
buNge yearly, and 1t is at once apparent y.
yfmmSnse sums over and above the cost "
maintenance are drawn from the steamboat ~
,rests BY this tax upon commerce. to pay ~
wharf Dondholder or to enrich the CON ID
tor.
the opinion OF the DEMOCRAT the wharf W
ds do not represent benefit conferred lss
q commerce which 1t can be taxed to re- I'll
They represent the extravaganza and "
rovidence to use no harsher terms, OF 80
administrations, and are entitled to no pa
9 consideration. On the other hand the
MERGE Of this great city should not
laced at the mercy Of contractors, how y
honorable or efficient, and no effort In
lid be spared by our city administration Of
feet q reduction Of wharfage to such rates tul
Ill serve to provide the necessary facilities fro
ur shipping, and no more. 70,
II steamboatmen are strangely patient TIL
J, or this question would have been wa
I'd long since. Now that the lessee is tn,
lie or unwilling TO comply with his CON kn
j 1t would appear to US favorable OPP
unity to cancel the lease, provide some tn,
ent plan Of effecting the necessary repairs sh
reduce wharfage rates so as to realize the thu
amount required for this purpose. sp,