The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1875-06-09
CITY AFFAIRS.
Special Meeting of Board of aIavor and
AIdermen-The Liquor Agency-Opin-
ton of Solicitor Recollection of the
Hoard.

| or ana Aldermen met and were called 10 orue
at o'clock p. M, instead of q o'clock. all th
members of the Board being present
The Mayor announced the reception of Il
communication from City Solicitor Reed, re
| plying to certain questions propounded to hin
| by the Board of Mayor and Aldermen, relativ,
to the liquor agency. The following is the
| City Solicitors reply:
OFFICE OF CITY SOLICITOR,
Portland, June Sth, 1875.
| To the Board of Mayor and aldermen, Gentle
men:
Your request that shout! furnish you with
my opinion on the two questions following has
been received:
FIRsT-Who has the right to appoint the
City Agent for the sale of intoxicating liquors
| SECoND-Whether or not the proceeding Of
| the Board of Mayor and Aldermen OF May
| 18th, constituted an appointment OF an agent
| The twenty sixth section of chapter twenty
| seven of the Revised Statutes, as amended
| which confers the authority to appoint liquor
| agent, reads, so far as concerns the first ques
| ton asked, as follows:
ns se ef OF d any town. or Mayor
| appoint some suitable person as the agent Of
said town or city to sell liquors in conformity te
| law"
| Unless this section is modified by some other
provision of statute it is evident that it settles
| the question.
| The last clause of section twenty-seven OF
| chapter three of the Revised Statutes, reads as
follows: s'In all cases where appointments to
Office are directed or authorized to be made bV
| the Mayor and Aldermen of cities, they may
be made by the Mayor, by and with the ad-
vice and consent of the Aldermen, and such
| officers may be removed by the Mayor.
This clause became law in 1866 and originated
| in a difference between the Mayor and Alder
| men of this city about the appointments or re
| moval Of nollonman Nevertheless it is claim
| ed that however the law may have originated,
| it is couched in language broad enough to IN
| clude the liquor agency, 1t SO, then the
liquor agency must be an office. But even II
| it is an office this by no means concludes the
question; for the language of the clause is that
appointments may" be made by the Mayor.
In the law of 1866, the word was ''shdH, which
was exclusive and conferred upon the Mayor
the sole right to appoint. The word SHAT /,
has been changed to 'n,dy' with the intent and
effect probably to make the right of appoint
ment by the Mayor and by the Board of AL
dermen concurrent.
Without, however, expressing a positive
opinion On this point, which would be neces-
Sary, put my answer to your question upon
different ground.
A careful Investigation of the various en-
aclments relating to the appointment of liquor
agent satisfies me That the legislature have in
tentionally and carefully excluded the idea OF
office from the position the agent was to hold.
in the law of 1855, been changed to that of
Situation" but throughout the Statutes relat-
ing to the subject commencing with the law OF
1853, some other word appears to be used when
the word "office" would have naturally been
employed, had not the exclusion of that word
and the idea conveyed by it, bt en- Intentional.
Such, also, has been the construction of one,
and probably two, OF my predecessors In the
City Sohcitorship.
Tie situation Of liquor agent not being an
gof41n foil hot tuAciY n
chapter twenty-seven Of the Revised Statutes
is not modified by the last clause of section
twenty-seven of chapter three. and that the ap.
pointment of the agent belongs to the Board of
Mayor and Aldermen.
That board is, under our charter, not two bod
ies the one the Mayor and the other the Alder
men, the concurrent action of which, acting
separately, is necessary to the appointment, but
one body acting as unit
This brings me to the consideration OF the
second question, whether the proceedings of
the board of May 18th constituted an appoint
ment of Liquor Agent
On this question l have some doubt, arising
not upon the point actually then in dispute be-
tween the Mayor and the Aldermen, but upon
an entirely different matter. The Mayor, the
record says, did not declare the vote. A body
like the Board of Mayor and Aldermen speaks
through its chairman, aud while 1t is his duty
to announce the decisions of the body over
which he presdes, he did not do so in this case;
that by so doing he might concede the very
point iD controversy.
And no one called upon him to declare the
result or took any other method to have the
decision of the Board announced While this
is merely formality, yet the fact that any
mistake might imperii tie property of the city
makes it incumbent upon me, if the Board de-
termine to continue the agency, to advise that
in some appropriate way, as by resolution,
Mr.. Weeks or such person as the Board deems
L. L. tod hsr nE
procedure will obviate any question.
Very respectfully,
L. B. REED, City Solicitor.
When the Clerk had completed the reading
of the opinion, Alderman Fox novel that it
be entered upon the records of the Board. The
Mayor then asked if there was any further
business. Alderman Fox said that as it was
suggested in the opinion of the City Solicitor
that selection of Liquor Agent might be
made by the passage of an order. he offered an
order to the effect that William Weeks is
hereby appointed Liquor Agent for the ensuing
year.
Alderman Gage raised the point of order
that the appointment could not legally be made
in that way, holding that the Mayor had pow
ers distinct from those conferred upon the AL
dermen-that it was solely his preregative to
nominate, and that the only thing the Alder
men could do was to confirm or reject. He
warned the majority of the Board against taxi
ing this step, as the city would lose its stock of
liquors if prosecution was begun, as 1t aoiH be.
Alderman Fox replied that on the 18th of
May the Alderman from Ward (Mr. Gage)
desired to refer the matter to the City Solicitor
and.urged it with much earnestness. Now the
Board had that opinion and this action was IN
the line suggested. The Solicitor is the law
law officer of the city government. We ask
his advice, and when he gives it we have no
one else to look to. He knew nothing about
these points of law, but felt safe in following
the suggestions of the City Solicitor.
The Mayor said that he adhered to his former
opinion. He had great confidence in the in
tegrity and ability of the City Solicitor, but
could not sacrifice his own convictions on this
subject. He had not the least personal feeling
about the matter, but he did not care to take
responsibility of this action by sanctioning it.
He therefore ruled the resolution of Alderman
Fox to be out of order.
Alderman Fox said he felt delicacy in ap-
pealng from the decision of the chair but felt
he must DO so. he tneu Hl;lue inoGiOu W dP-
peal from the decision of the Mayor, which
question being put the Board did not sustain
the Mayor. The order was then passed, che
Mayor being allowed to have his protest en-
tered upon the records
The order of the Common Council authoriz-
ing the hiring of $4,000 to put steam heating
apparatus in the aims house was informally
considered.
Mr.. Gerrish, from the special committee on
that subject, said that estimates had been OBJ
tanned of two competent firms, and both Of
these put the amonnt necessary to expand for
this purpose somewhat below $500. He said
that the expense of heating by the present sys-
tenn the last municipal year was $2,993 60, and
that the cost of heating by steam at the high
est estimate would be $1,000, including $516 in
terest on the cost of $500, showing saving of
1868 by the introduction of steam.
Mr.. Littlefield, one of the Overseers of the
Poor, being called, made some statements, but
without voting ON the question the Board ad-
journed.
A LIVELY Row.-About noon yesterday two
Young men, one of them colored, pitched bat
tie at the Eastern depot At first they stood
off some distance and amused themselves in