682 FEDERAL REPORTER. �river front of Ihe city of New Orleans, where the same are in undis- puted good order and repair. By the ordinanee he is required to paj for this use 10 cents per ton of his boats for each landing. Is this a rea- sonable charge for the accommodations f urnished ? If it is reasona- ble it is no tax on coinmerce, no matter what may be dqne with the moneys so collected. The eomplainant cannot litigate for the rights of others. If wharves other than those used by eomplainant are in bad order, it is no concern of eomplainant, except as he may be a pubiic-spirited citizen. �It is shown that eomplainant uses the best and most eligible wharves in the city front, and that the rates as applied to those particular wharves are very low, the eomplainant having offered the city, for the exclusive use of those wharves, to pay the rates and yet build and maintain them at his own cogt. But to determine whether this charge against eomplainant is reasonable, regard must be had to the whole system of wharves and levees for the city, as no just resuit can be obtained by taking any one favorod point and basing the issue upon that. �The evidence offered herein sh,pw8 that the total cost of the wharves now existing is largelyover $1,000,000; that by reason of the climate, the nature of the banks, and the uncertain currents of the river, constant watching and repairing and rebuilding are neces- sary ; that by the rates as uxed in the present ordinanee the rev- enues will amount to about $200,000 per year, or about one-fifth of the total cost of the constructions; that the present charges are and are to be a little less than the charges were for the five years preceding this present rate, and that in the course of years the rates have been reduced 50 per cent, on the class of boats used by eom- plainant, and it seems the rates compare f avorably with those of other cities on the river. Now, under this showing, this court cannot say that these rates are not reasonable, bearing in mind that just and reasonable compensation for the use of property must be some- thing more than the mere sum necessary to keep the property in repair. �As I have shown that the eomplainant has no legal concern as to how the reasonable compensation he pays for the use of wharves is expended, it is not really necessary to consider the charge that the defendant's contract and lease is an attempt to levy a tonnage tax, under the guise of wharfage dues, to support a harbor police,, pay wharfingers, etc., and maintain an electric-light system on the \\harves. However, I will say that every one interested in the wel- ��� �
