Year: 1868




Fisher, Pandely, Wynne and Farrell.


On motion of Mr.. Fisher, the reading Of
the minutes was dispensed with.


The following message from the Mayor
was received:


MAYoRALTY OF NEW ORLEANS. ,


City Hall, August 10, 1868. j
To the Honorable the Common Council:


GENTLEMEN: | return to the Board of As
sistaut Aldermen, fn which it originated,
the following joint resolution, viz:


ReSol0ed, THAT the Mayor be and he
is hereby authorized to enter into
contract, by notarial act, in behalf
OF the city OF New Orleans, with the
Southern Paving Company-security E. j.
Hart d Co.-for paving Race street. from
Tchoupitoulas to Coliseum street, with the
Nicolson pavement, at three dollars and
fifty cents (S3 50) per superficial square
yard, the work TO be done according to
plans and specifications on file in the office
Of the City Surveyor.


Preiiminarily, beg to say that no one
can possibly bemore interested in the i'm.
provement of our streets than myself. No
one Is more anxious to unite with the Com
mon Council in all legal measures calcu.
lated to forward any work for the benefit of
owners of vehicles, the convenience of pc
destrians, the promotion Of the public
health, and the enhancement of the value OF
real estate. 4 residence of more than a
quarter of a century in your midst, and a
thorough Identification of interest in the
welfare and prosperity of the city, is ample
proof that such must be my feelings and de-
sires as a citizen. Called to the Chief Ma.
gstracy of the city, these feelings aud de
sires are increased, for it will be my pride
at the close Of the present administration to
have SO labored for the public good as to
meet the appreciation of my constituents.


1t Is admitted that the paving of our
streets, whether considered sanatorially or as
matter of public convenience, or as in
creasing the value of taxable property, is of
paramount importance. The question arises,
first, what is the best paving that can be
adopted; second, its cost; and third, what
contracts can be made which will satisfy
the law?


Experience has demonstrated that the
square block pavement is best adapted to
the spongy alluvium upon which New Or.
leans is built. Ia uniformity of pressure, in
solldity, III durableness, in cleanliness, and
the small cost incident to keeping it in re-
PAIR, this pavement is superior in our eli
mate where there are neither ice nor snow,
to any other. The first experiments were
made on Chartres and Royal streets, and al.
though at first Improperly laid the square
blocks have suffered but little from the ef-
q
other important thoroughtares, the wear Of
these granite blocks is scarcely perceptble.
The few sinks, or inequalities OF surface,
which from time to time have occurred, are
chiefly due to tearing up the pavement by
the street railroad companies, and the i'm
perfect manner in which the blocks were re-
placed.


On the contrary, the Nicolson pavement
cannot, from the nature of the wooden ma
terials with which it is built, compete in
durableness with granite blocks, In my
Judgment, a few years will suffice to cause
many regrets. il this system of pavement
should be persisted in, that the experiment
was ever made. 1t will be found, if am
not greatly mistaken, the costliest expert
ment known to any city.


And just here it may be opportune to re
mark that prudence requires we should
determine, in the incipieucy of the attempt
to introduce this pavement, not to stultify
ourselves by creating a precedent, for one
inexpedent and illegal act rarely fails to
lead to others, in the anxiety to preserve at
least the external show of consistency.


TIE advocates of the Nicolson pavement
point with an air of triumph to Chicago, a
city built upon spongy prairie soil, whose
corporate authorities were induced to try
it in 1856. But, unfortunately, those of us
who have ever inspected this pavement on
those fashionable business thoroughfares,
Lake and Dearborn streets, have
been amazed that Chicago has been
cited as an example Of the utility
of this pavement. 1t is failure.
here and there along the roadway OF those
streets which, in wet weather, form pools OF
water, and in dry weather are repositories
Of dust. In New Orleans pedestrians, after
rain, can cross any portion Of our granite
pavement, for rains only make it cleaner.
But in Chicago the Nicolson pavement not
only aecumulates mnd in bad weather, but
dust in good, so that it is rarely, if ever,
clean. Did the advocates of this pavement
point to st. Louis as an example of success,
barring the unpleasant features of mud and
dust they might better sustain their argu-
ments. St. Louis is built upon a bed of
limestone. The surface is hard and unyield.
ing, and therefore this pavement cannot. as
in case of Chicago, so easily and speedily
degenerate into unpleasant depressions or
sinks. Yet even in st. Louis few years
have sutiiced to damage the pavement in
streets most used by vehicles.


IndepeL dent of the above considerations,
there are powerful, nay, conclusive legal
reasons why the city can not make con-
tract with the Southern Nicolson Paving
Company for laying down their pavement.
The first objection is to be found in the
city charter. The city is expressly forbid
AIA 1AAOiA Au0hlHS COllldCJ over lNt
hundred dollars for public works, supplies
or materials, unless such contract be adiu-
dicated by the Controller, after the usual
notice, 10 the l0tcest bidder, the contractor
giving good and solvent security for the
faithful performance of his duty. The OBJ
iect of this norice is to give eeeIy citizen an
opportunity of bidding at such public sale,
and in order that economy may be con-
suited the contract is only let to the lowest
bidder.


There is no exception to the explicit pro-
vision OF the charter that "all contracts for
public works" must be disposed of in the
manner. And iG would be the
veriest farce were contract for paving a
street with the Nicolson pavement TO be put
up at public auction, and the people should
see, solus, a representative of the Southern
Paving Company precluding all other bids
by virtue of an exclusive right


Now the Nicolson Paving Company have
q patent for their pavement, and are, there
fore, necessarily monopolists. 1t would
frustrate the whole object of the law regu.
lating adiudications of contracts for public
works, and furnish a most unfortunate pre-
cedent for violating the charter, were the
Mayor to enter into notarial contract with
the company, as the resolution in question
authorizes. IThe validity of such an act
would not bear the test Of law in even the
court of Justice of the Peace.


Suppose that this illegal act was executed,
and the company should lay down its pave.
ment, and neither the present nor a future
administration should see fit to contest it?
Who is to keep this pavement in repair
WIN the company part with so much of its
nafent as will authorize the city, through
It's Street Commissioner, to repair the pave
menta Aad it it did, will it guarantee to
teach each succeeding Street Commissioner
or contractort the art of laVing down the
paveraents The company viii do neither of
these thlngs Should the city attempt re-
palrs, the patent Of the company would au-
thorlze them to sue ont an Injunction. and