The New Orleans daily Democrat., 1880-03-24
TEE SUGAR SIZED NATTER.
The Action Relative to 1t the
City Council Is Requested
to Take.
~ Readable Memorial Of tho Sugar
n Planters Association Of Louisiana.

to the committee OK the whole:
TO the Mayor and Administrators Of the City Of
New Orleans:
Your memorial!sts. representine tho Sugar
That. desirous of promoting the interests oi
ths tie sugar SUE planters of Louisiana. they are urged
to submit " your consideration the following
fhe sugar planting industry OF this State IL
that upon which New Orleans must mostly rely
Tor giving occupation to the people Of this CITY.
5 S slbsod sSn sh hsre ana a
sequence, every facility should DO given by the
City Council 70 attract hithsr the entire pro-
market. ana have hitherto. Under many dim
culties. given II decided preference. but
THEI1 BURDENS HAVE BEEN 50 INCREASED
and become 90 intolerable that they have sought
other markets vh yisw q ocisininE ,Sa 9i some ON
tinue, unlsss they 6nd at home suficient safe.
fhe market q their ohoies: ....-
important branch Of It's trade planters and
factors are anxious to avoid. yet unless their
.sd now. and unless their facilities ars rem more great.
" incrt ased. they will DO driven, BY the law Of
sell. protection to avoid. as much a. possible.
they and no effort made 70 protect the fruits Of
Nearly up TO the year 1859 the entire ,llevee
mart. and. though Inadequate. was used with
VIZ sood Witt 10 he ms
About this time the City Council unfortunately
enacted what II known as ordinance No. 1928.
nance. and subsequently was passed what Is
called . contract between the then Mayor. acting
without any authority whatever. and Francis d.
By these acts. q space already Insufficient for
further % Sircumscribed @ and s' UNDER them lem The
planters and their consignees we're subjected
to the imposition OF grinding monopoly.
public spaces which. BY right. should be- open
% the public. subject only % such regulations
~ might be necessary to avoid impeding COM
70 HARRAss TEE PLANTERS THE MORE.
and annoy rather than encourage them to ship
% this market. charges. already too onerous
Wor0 supplemented by additional ones. by IN
amendment adopted on the seventh Of May.
1875. known as ordinance No. A02. administrA-
A . sequence. OF these ordinances. and the
illegal and unjust taxation resulting from arbi.
hltrAry charges and the sinking OF all respon-
sfoility when complaints are made, abuses In
sr sndss he sSs wsoas ner r.
aonRl notice TO owner or consignee, on the plea
s hs S,2s s1aPs Ssa vas before ~
charges for hauling. when such expense had
not been incurred. and others, unnecessary
r@nsd you eannot 1s Da'n viii not ATs Teliase as
them. to organize thoroughly to protect them
selves. eitner BY abandoning this market or
But they still have fattn In your sense OF jus
Ice They believe that you ohertsh too dearly
ther Interests and those oi ths city not to give
70 act In the premises.
THREE REMEDIES
arc within your provincs and power:
First Enlarge the present landing and mart
date the requirements of the sugar interest.
Second Remove the landing and mart to an
other point where sufficient and ample accom-.
Third Absolutely prohibit the sale on the
landing Of all sugars received. and compel the
oae osmS deaS sRa a other products to be removed With
On tne irst proposition we urge thst the
sugar planters are Justly entitled to ample
tomary mart Il the present system Is to be CON.
ttnued. and that 4. for that purpose. It be
necsssery to order the demolition Of tho sugar
'4lpn Ii adopting that course.
these REQUESTS should notbe granted. II II be |
81. and ths contract entered into with the
sncar aheds. wsa rerly;
Nrst-That the EuRat Bheds Company have
aeanired no rights which you cannot repeal at
SSirsdd i am. and lssslasiye Sediss
b tSe e4piraon Of ten ten ,ears being tbs longest
neriod Tor which any grant could be made.
Thlrd-N rights they hayS. they are OF the |
ss.s dssgnated as almost
oharacter, which under the Constitution OF 1879
the Legislature itself cannot grant TART. 40. sec
81 5 graz Grant: and. even en- II legally granted. Is ex
jpresely abroaated by the last paragraph OF
article 25s oi the same constitutt9n.
contract under which vested rights have been
OCCURRED. We reply that
THERE NEVER HAS BEEN * CONTRACT
between the city of New Orleans and Francis B.
rsncs Fetaa and drf John tse
latter. as mayor. has never been authorized to |
enter Into the agreement which he signed. and
nor obiiRate the city, which remains free at any
time to change. modify. or abroRate any and all
ordinances on the subject matter, or coenate
Fifth-And finally. with q view OF placing
before you all our grievances. for the purpose
6 the
and that too Ii direct violation 81 an express
roh,bitory statute. permit us to Call your at
arch. isss which n; nreseribes: 81 That It shall
g tpco%pstent te tie Mayor and CITY Council
now enacted. whereby any tax. duty. impost or
charge OF any nature whatsoever shall be or is
imposed upon 90Oue. produce, wares or mor-
chandise. OF whatsoever kind or nature landed
in or shipped from the corporate limits OF said
city
Please read over this statute carefully. and
ask yourselves ask the city attorney, how the
provisions OF ordinance No. 4492 a,imtnistra-
Zion series. which Impose duty and charge Of
FORTY CENTS ON EVERY HoGsHEAD OF SUGAR.
and fifteen cents on every barrel Of mOlasses,
not including the incidental EXTRAS placed
upon the public spaces on the levee. !. g.. land
ed n the limits q the city. g.. rolled in Or
violated law.
surely you will say with us that the sugar
tolerant especially X you will bear In mind
how desperate their struggles have been. even
to meet their current expenses. without realiZ- |
ing any profita you will see that the sugar shed
ordinances are unconscionable and oppres-