Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1871-02-04

vantage Of the expenditure Of this money is
| felt by but few. Towns tax the whole public
| to put money into the hands of few police
men, firemen and watchmen, and to fee few
| magistrates. They do the same to lay sewers
| IN one street, to the exclusion of an other, to
| lay. water-mains along one avenue, emitting
| another. They tear down, and fill up, and
| rebuild in particular localities, for sanitary
purposes, and all other localities help pay for
| 1t, without one scot of direct participation in
| the receipt of profit. They build roads to
| accommodate a half dozen families on some
| remote hillside, or bridge over some tur-
bulent creek, which perhaps not one-fourth
part of the whole population Of the town will
cross single time in twenty years. They
even construct roadways to accommodate a
| single shipyard, tannery, a brickyard, or a
sawmill, the whole public being thus mulcted
for the advantage of perhaps one citizen, and
of nobody else so far as regards direct re-
suits"
$50, Mr.. Objector," the community adds,
1.-The illustration might be continued to almost
any length, of the outlay of public treasure
| for special purposes, upon special classes, in
special localities. There is no public expen-
diture but is special. But no rational man
| throws in constitutional objections on this
account. Everybody understands that how
ever unequal the direct application of the ex-
penditure may be, the ultimate and indirect
advantage of it is SO large and so evenly diff
fused over the whole body corporate. that
it is held justfable, held to be truly and SUBJ
stantially public-and this is precisely the
position of the town with respect to the cot
ton mill"
The CoMMUNIIY FURTHER RESPONDS
"As to your second point, namely, that the
cotton mill is private are not railroads
equally private? Are they not managed by
corporations fer their own profit? The only
advantage accruing to the public from rail-
roads is the indirect one resulting from their
use. Yet no constitutional objection against
municipal aid to railroads is valid on the
ground of privacy. Neither can any objec-
ton stand against the cotton factory on this
ground. The public have their indirect ad-
vantage from the factory, precisely as from
the railroad. The indirect advantage is not
enjoyed in SO close and visible connection
with the MILL as it is with the railroad, but it
is nevertheless enjoyed. More people wear
cotton cloth than ride in the cars. The fact
is, that with our mortgage upon the mill, with
the insurance upon it in our name and inter-
est, the mill is more thoroughly ours, the
publics, than the railroad to which we con-
tributed is ours. The manager of that mill
is TO a certain extent our agent, sufficiently
so at least for all necessary purposes. Your
error is precisely that made by the opponents
of municipal aid in general, namely, that the
town money is to be given away without
security, as Augusta gave quarter million
to the Spragues. This is not designed. The
town is to be amply secured, and to have an
annual return on its money. The manager
will doubtless make living, and perhaps
something more, but surely we need not
grudge this, when every interest in the town
is to receive benefit. We propose to do sim
ply what Portland did with the Building Loan.
in which she has nearly million dollars in
vested-help build up our place. Portland
has helped build scores of houses, stores,
manufactures, ETC., yet nobody has ever
made the objection of unconstitutienality. p"
W.