The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1880-01-11
THE SUGAR SHEDS.

To the Editor of the Democrat:
/ In your issue OF the ninth instant your COM
mercial editor says, under the head OF 81 be
Sugar Exchange" that IF the above project
Is attempted 1t may probably reopen the
question OF the legality OF the sugar sheds
which was apparently settled some time ago
Now desire to say that the question of the
legality of the sheds never has been ''settled'
at all. Under the late Pilsbury administra-
tion OF this city / brought this important
subject before the Council formally, In the
shape of a petition to that body In q series
of newspaper articles L reviewed The origin
and course OF that organization mot corpora
tIon, for as such 1t has no right to EXIST;
| charged that Ii originated In fraud and il-
EQUITY; existed Ia spite and In defiance Of law,
aud invited 1t to u test OF its legitimacy III the
courts. Even Ii it had right to exist,
proved that 1t bad forfeited that right by
practices OF extortion A committee WIS APP
pointed by the Council to examine into the
charge OF extortion (made formally by bust
ness mem. and the report of the committee
| was adverse 20 the organization. The extor-
tion proved was utterly heartless and out
| rageous, and legally worked q forfeiture OF
their charter. II they ever had one.
More than all this, personally visited the
Mayor and discussed the organization with
him, and to mo he unqualitiedIy admitted
that 1t originated In fraud that Ii could not
| legally occupy the land it heidi that it had
| been guilty Of falsehood In avowing that 1t
had spent on the ground as much of its own
money as claimed that It had been guilty of
gross extortton, and that 1t was a detriment
to the public.
Even more published quotations from as
many as six or seven decisions OF high judi
cal tribunals, at home and abroad. bearing
directly Oh the subject OF their occupancy of
the hnd, and all adverse to the organic .tion.
What was the result of ell this2 The Coun-
Gil condoned the gross extortion Of the organ
ization, com promised with them, and, on an
utterly fitmsy aud irrelevant "opiniun" OF the
city attorney, dropped the subject.
And now what? Another slice of the levee
has recently been demanded for sheds by an
other patriotic organizations; the present
Council placed the question before the pres
cut city attorney, aud he has unhesitatingly
decided that the land cannot be legally alien
ated.
And then what? Why, 1t seems as plain as
the nose 10 MAJ man's face that 1t Is the duty of
the present City Council to look into the
whole history and workings of the sugar shed
organization, aud to Institute proceedings for
their removal from the ground they illegally
occupy.
But it seems from the published proceed
ings Of the Sugar Planters Association that
a committee has been appointed by that body
to look into the matter OF the sugar sheds.
So far so good Now let these gentlemen
plunge in medias res. Go back to the history
Of the procuring OF the land from the CITY
Council See VINO got "prefei red stock" and
who manipulated matters. Look into the ex-
tortton OF the organization as recorded In the
official proceedings of the Plsbury admin
istration. Ferret out everything. and then,
through courts or Legislature, Ego for
Them This is not fight against man or
a few men, for man or few men. It Is q
fight against an illegal and oppressive mo-
nopoly, which bears down upon great In
dustry, Injuries great numbers, and is detri-
mental to a great city and a State. Ii it has
q right to exist It will fear neither courts nor
Legislature. II 1t has no such right, kill 1t.