upr000331 96

? H H M i l / Mareh 22, 1911. Collections fo r dockage East San Pedro, Mr. H. I . B e t t i s , Aud i t or . Dear S i r : I hare your favor of March 14 on the above subject. In my opinion under Sec. 6 of Ordinance Ko. 20936, it was the duty of every wharf owner to charge the dockage rates pres©rib® ed therein to the owner of every vessel docking at wharves, no matter how long the vessels were tied up to such Wharves . Ordinance 21679 was. adopted at the suggestion of interested parties, p articu larly the Wilmington Transportation Company, in order to avoid the payment o f double dockage where vessels docked on both sides of the bay. There may be d iffic u lt ie s in the way of adjusting the amounts due the several wharf owners, where one vessel docks at several wharves during one day, but this is a matter that must be overcome. It would appear that a practical plan would be to have the wharf owners meet to arrange a system fo r the colle©~ tion of dockage, and the division of the same. A simple plan would be to have the wharf owner at whose dock the vessel f i r s t docks, issue a receipt showing the date and time o f dock* age. Then when such vessel desire to tie up at another wharf, the captain can present such receipt to the owner of the wharf. In the absence of such receipt, I think it would be the duty of the wharf owner to in sist upon payment o f dockage. While there are d iffic u lt ie s in the way of carrying out the provisions of the ordinance, they do no^ seem to me insurmountable, and it is my opinion that the provisions of the ordinance should be observed. Otherwise we are subject to a penalty. I return herewith correspondence. Very respectfully, A. 8. HALSTED