The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1880-01-14


panies and agencies doing business In New Or
feansH sworn Statement az 20 their business.
A failure TO comply, With this demand on the
day fxed carries with II an immediate. penalty
Of $50 and continuing penalty Of s25 for each
additional days delay.
TO the employees OF the corporation created ID
given the right any law OF tho State or ordi-
nance Of the City Council of New Orleans not.
withstanding, Of daterm ming with what speed
ita vehicles or engines shall pass through the
reefs and any person failing or negeeting to
clear the way for tham Ia liable on conviction,
to a flre or tenalty.
Nv ffst impress. ion of this bill WINS that Il
merely sought Legislative approval Of aud
legal sanction. through the agency " p private
or oogn5ons ana psmaas " tba
PARTIES concerned. A careful examination of
ita various acc ions satisfies me was mistaken
propose IL enforce e nyentional obligations
and conventional penalties, but to create nbli-
cations and penalties which would have no OK
istence but through this propoeed law:
cannot concur with the General Assembly
az TO Its right to ereete such obligations and
impnse such penalties. / reoosnt.e fully ths
not be aided or fostered by method
Yoat,ye Of Grinoin'eas q private yhs rsnt
ance companies are private corporations,
organized fer private gain. that this new pro-
posed corporation would he a private one. m
der. no legal obligation whatever 20 The public,
and under no legal control. 1t might be diseop-
tinuel In six months. Or imn ediatsy without
violation Of duty 70 a a. T. might ke n ,is vs
and NO one could complain. for The simple req.
son that i II not engaged 70 the performance q
any public duty. The good II aeaomptshes Is
primarily designed for iis members. for even
IN cases where property Ia saved, not imme-
dfatelY attacked by fire II must not be FORGOTTEN
that the extent and direction Of cob tagrations
are uncertain and that the element of possible
personal advantage In controlling and direetlug
them II Ia the nature Of things present ~ every
fire. removed, however, from their actions In
such cases a1l considerations OF self. and this
legai proposition would remain:
If the general public ls to be benefited hy the
acts OF the salvage corpa. then the general pub
lie should pay for 1t. IL on the other hand
question Of individual benefit is presented,
then the particular individual benefited should
alone contribute and to the precise extent that
he has heen actually benefited: The remedy in
such case II any remedy should pc s h aee nm
right of action ~ upon quhnhnh merHt, Tor
services ehuring actually to that Individual.
right u prtsent fixed assessment could be I'm
posed upon particular individual and upon
the mere contingency of n possible future prt-
yate good to him to DO rendered by q private
CORPORATION.
think that the nower Of forced assessments
which would ba given to thia corporation under
this bill would be simply power granted 10 a
certain number OF rompnntas engaged - p'.-
vate business to force their idens "a TO what y
good for the prosecution OF ,hat kind ,. q hMaa
ness upon others who do not agree with tbem,
and that any moneys which would De taken
from these last would he private. properly
purpoees. I do not think the ill sustainabte
On the ground of q haing legal power nf tux.
alton f. subordinate CORPORATION DO nol
soc the force of the argument aa to the mower
Of the Legislature to ntffx terms and conditions
upon which corporations from other states
should do business In this State. FOR two rea-
Ronp:
/. The bill does not attach the payment ~ y
condition precedent to the exercise Of their
business; these companies are already doing
hnainass Internationally aud the non payment
Of the assessment is not made cause OF lot
feiture.
nj. 10 t,nfp Hnn tn
but may alao strike refusing home companies.
A bin substantially like the presen. one was
presented to the General Assembly during tue
session Of 1873, when II was unfavorahly re-
ported on hya majority Of the judiciary o2m-
mittee in the Hous and tsyorabls by major
ity OF The Committee on Corporations. aid was
ordered to lie on tho table.
am inclined to believe TINT tho passage Of
the present bill by the laet Cen ,rai Assembly
wna to some extent due TO lie title, and that IL
another objection have to the bill. which. OBJ
serve. was not referred to tho Committee on the
| Article ia OF tho constitution declares that
| it, title"
| / do not Deem II necessary for me to specially
allude to the decisions on this article. for the
reason that think the Executive occupies n
different position from the judiciary ~ ~ thls
/ constitutional requirement.
/ Whenever bill submitted to tho Governor
! for his approval contains provisions ~ Whien
the tito ei her gives no intimations whatever,
or intmatinn so slight as to give rise to II rea-
spnahle belief that those provisions were over
| look ed or not noticed II Is his duty, especially
where those provisions are important and liable
to RtronE legal objections, to return the hill. 40
| MS to make certain. as matter Of tAet that
| those provisions had been fully considered
/ Should tho bill go returned pHaa. 1t would tnan
be for the judiciary. on proper occasion to apply
n judicial teat to theiitle aa matter ot pure law,
think the object OF the present hll Was nov no,
sufficiently disclosed In Its tito. It evidently
/ had In view the creation OF u private CORPORA
ton. AMI while II would have hNen Impossible
| In the tttle If such y Bill t. enumrrate al the
i WI hpan conferred
! It. no member Of the House could have reason
i t. believe that any powers would he conferred
| other than those properly apperta,ntng 10 tue
class of corporations to which II was TO belong.
! | further object TO this bill on account or It's
delegating. without mention in ~ titia; 70 !.
II private corporation or to private individuals
nside Of u municipal CORPORATION. the right q
determining tho rate Of spaced Mt which vehicles
shall pa 8 through the streets. aublecting cit I
zans to f,nes and penalties based on such deci-
sion Safety of parson ts certainly ~ mHch IN
object Of concern as safety OF property and
should not hs left dependent unon the iuaas 81
parties specially and personally Interested In
/ the latter subject.
Il Is sometimes said that the Execu'iyeshoulld
4 sign bills leaving the CONSTITUTE ,nallty to DC
atiorward tested by parties In interest. Such u
not his DUTY generally. Their, are cases in
my opinion. this n not one Of them.
80 : ''''9' FRANCIS T. NICHOLAS.
THE IBERvILLE SPECIAL TAX,
This bill authorized the parish OF lbsrville
to levy a special tax to pay Its Indebtedness
under certain conditions.
Gov Nichols says that he thinks that the
ascertainment Of tho validity aud amount OF
claims by Judgment should precede and moi
follow the delegation of the power to addition
ally tax:
The General Assembly would then at the lost
have some fixed basis to proceed upon. l %
not see how this outstanding indebtedness
could exist against the parish unless the ioca
authorities had exceeded their powers ana q. "a
tempted to create debt. without complying witt
the eand ,tion precedent to the creation OF debit
imposed by section PAS Of the Revised Statutes
by simultaneously providing ways ana mean
4 OF payment Should this have been the case.
am opposed to legaizng their unauthnr2st
acts, Ii there we're any fac & TO remove the par
fcuar claims whose payment Is here sought q
be provided for from the operations OF the gen
eral law they should have been stated.
THE ERAsTE MOUToN BILL.
In brief the reasons given by the Governo