Skip to main content

Search the Special Collections and Archives Portal

upr000331 19

Image

File
Download upr000331-019.tif (image/tiff; 26.12 MB)

Information

Digital ID

upr000331-019
    Details

    Rights

    This material is made available to facilitate private study, scholarship, or research. It may be protected by copyright, trademark, privacy, publicity rights, or other interests not owned by UNLV. Users are responsible for determining whether permissions are necessary from rights owners for any intended use and for obtaining all required permissions. Acknowledgement of the UNLV University Libraries is requested. For more information, please see the UNLV Special Collections policies on reproduction and use (https://www.library.unlv.edu/speccol/research_and_services/reproductions) or contact us at special.collections@unlv.edu.

    Digital Provenance

    Digitized materials: physical originals can be viewed in Special Collections and Archives reading room

    Publisher

    University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Libraries

    harge fo r dockage - Wilmington Transportation Company - - - - A pril 8, 1915. / r / O Dear S ir • Mr. H. C. Niitt, General Manager. 1 have your l e t t e r o f 'A p r il 5 in c lo s in g f i l e . This subject is an old on© and there has been considerable corres­pondence thereon passing "between th is and the A u d ito r's o f f ic e since 1910. The f i r s t ordinance o f the c it y was adopted in September, 1910, and provided that the dockage rates named should be charged fo r each day o f tw enty-four hours or fr a c ­tion t h e r e o f. As th is worked a hardship upon the Banning Com­pany, the ordinance was amended by in s e rtin g the p ro visio n appearing in the f i r s t paragraph o f Mr, Barry ‘ s 'l e t t e r to you. in closed in the f i l e . Under th is paragraph I held that where a vessel docked.at severa l wharves during any one day that the dockage fe e s should be d ivid ed among the wharf oamwrs and suggested to the Auditor that the matter be taken up w ith the Sou them p a c ific Company and a plan worked out fo r tbs d iv is io n o f fe e s . At the. instance o f the Auditor I took up the m atter w ith the le g a l department o f the southern p a c if ic , and Mr. Karr o f that department agreed w ith me in the construction o f the ordinance and sta ted that he would advise his company to take up the matter and adjust i t w ith our A u ditor, and I presumed i t had been concluded. I' note from Mr. B a rry 's le tte r that the Wilmington Transportation Company has paid the Southern P a c ific Company one-half days dockage fo r steamers landing at southern P a cific wharves between September 21s.t, 1910, and July, 19 IX * It seems to me we are entitled to the same aate fo r dockage at our wharf during the same p erio d . Por the p eriod from July 1 s t, 1911, to July 1st, 1913, I note that the Wilmington Transportation Company has paid the southern p a c ific Company the f u l l dockage rates pre­scribed by the ordinance. We are entitled to a share of the amount so paid . The ordinance simply provides that the dockage fees sh all be divided among the several wharf ownerB, and there is no p ro visio n as to the method o f d i v i s i o n t h i s being le f t to an equitable adjustment between the wharf owners. I see no ground fo r not claim ing a f i f t y per cent d iv is io n of these fees with the Southern P a c ific Company, although, as stated, there is 'no exact p ro visio n as to d iv is io n fix e d by the ordinance i t s e l f . I may say th at, as the statute of lim itations has run fo r our fa ilu r e to c o lle c t the fees from the Wilmington Trans­portation Company up to July 1st, there could be no penalty exacted from us fo r fa ilu r e to c o lle c t such fe e s . I return f i l e . Very tru ly you rs,