upr000331 19

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,