The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1868-02-11

To the Editor Of the Press:
The gist of the argument in favor of the sub
scription of a million and a half of dollars by
the city to build the Ogdensburg Road. appears
to be this; that two thirds of the voting ponula-
tlon OF city or town have a soIt of divine
right to appropriate the property of their fell
low citizens in any manner that they may con-
slider beneficial to the community; or in other
words, two thirds of the voters may do as thew
please with the property ofthe whole; and the
friends of this scheme ask for the passage of
the bill on the ground that it is only asking
the same privilege for Portland that has all
ready been granted by the Legislature to other
cities and towns in the State.
The answer to this is that the object of
municipal government is the protection of
the persons and property fthe citizens, and not
the building of railroads, or the undertaking of
similar enterprises; and that although laws,
general and special, have been passed giving
cities and towns the right to subscribe the
money of their citizens to build railroads, vet
the Legislature is not infallible; it sometimes
makes bad laws, and these laws, have been
characterized by the best legislators as wild
and unsafe legislation, and of doubtful consti-
nationality. Any enterprise that diffuses cant
tai, and gives employment to numbers of peo-
plo, is benefit to the city in which it is estab-
lished; but has city for that reason the right
by a two-thirds vote to build a sugar house, or
cotton mill, or to establish wholesale dry
goods business? The new hotel will be of great
benefit to the city; but would it have been right
for the city to build it had it not been secured to
us by the public spirit and large fortune of its
owner? 1t may be said that we are belittling
the question; but We are only carrying out tie
principle contended for to its logical conclusion
There is no end to the schemes that might be
thrust upon the city if the general benefit is TO
govern in such cases. There is no more divine
right of tw o-thirds than divine right of kings.
The only proper way for city to aid such
enterprises is by a loan of its credit on suffic.
Gent security. To subscribe outright, to take
money from the pockets of its citizens for a
purpose outside of the object for which the CITY
charter is granted, we maintain is unconstitu-
tional, and believe that a citizen refusing to
pay a tax levied to raise money for such a pur-
pose would be sustained By the courts.
How unjust, that wealthy men should raise
the rate of taxation, even now oppressive, by
adding million or more to the public debt.
The rate would then be over three per cent,
which is almost confiscation to many kinds of
property.
How would such taxation affect all persons
ofmoderate means, who live with great eco
nomy on account of the hard times and high
prices? The rich, and those who have no pro-
perry at all, or whose property is of that nature
that it pays no tax, or slight one in proper
ton to the income derived from it, would suf-
fer no Inconvenience. Men of largo income
can well afford to raise the rate of taxation;
but is it just to tax the small householder to
build a railroad to benefit the city, and benefit
the rich man who can afford to hold real estate
Notwithstanding the increased taxation, until
he derives the benefit OF its increased value
consequent upon the pubic Improvement that
the small property holders have helped to pay
for, and from which the benefit they will do
rive is small, doubtful and remote.
This is using the city government as an aren't
for speculation, for purpose foreign to that
for which 1t was created, and instead of pro-
tecting the property of its citizens it is made a
means of forcing a contribution from them.
which, however beneficial it may be to the city
eventually, may inflictupon many individuals
a burden which they crnnot bear without the
greatest distrAat -Hs 1'@ K.