The Portland daily press., 1879-06-23
PORTLAND & ROCHESTER, RAILROAD
Some Things Which Need Exn,anat,on

Some Things Which Need Explanation.
MIR. EDIToR:-I have read the discussions
and votes of the City Council and the reported
opinions of our leading citizens touching the
proposed sale of the citys interest in the
Rochester Railroad to the Receiver, for S175-
500, and I confess that some things seem to
need explanation.
In the first place, was it not rather sum
mary proceeding to convoke special meeting
of the City Council within six hours after
opening of the bids? Was it not little hasty
in the Aldermen to vote to accent the
Receivers offer on the spot without waiting
to see if more could not be obta ined for the
property? The committee that received the
bids was expressly forbidden the power to
accept any of them, but was ordered to report
to the City Council, which distinctly reserved
the right to reject all bids at its pleasure.
Furthermore, if understand the duties of a
Receiver, it seems that he ought not. on
general principles, to be bidder or<ene of a
number of purchasers, or an agent for purchas-
ers. Perhaps am wrong, and in any court the
Honorable Receiver would be the last man to
act in any capacity which he considered incon-
sistent with his official trust, and it may well
be said in his behalf that his is the best offer of
the three.
Again, what have the holders of the $350,OOO
bonds whose secured mortgage the City
Government of 1870 undertook to make SEQ
equal and concurrent with the city's first
mortgage, to do with the proposed sale of the
city's interest in the Portland & Rochester
Railroad?
1t may well be asked whence the City
Council of 1870 obtained the legal authority to
make so costly present at the expense of the
taxpayers Was it by act of Legislature or
by vote of the citizens? Or is it claimed that
any such authority is implied in the city
charter? If not, can such an act of uncon-
ditional surrender of valuable property of the
citizens, without consideration be lawful and
valid? But, even if it should be SO decided,
what has the city to do about it with them,
in selling its interest? Surely man or
city may sell its interest in l,roport5, rool
or personal, to any purchaser for whatever he
may be pleased to give. In such case the $780,
900 bondholders have him to look to, in case
the Supreme Court makes them joint owners
with him of their third part of the property
In no event ought the city to mix itself up
with them in the proposed sale.
Somebody has imputed to Hon. S. E. Spring
the singular statement that the city cannot
honorable refuse to sell to the Receiver, even
though much larger sum should be offered
by some one else 1t is hardly credible that
Mr. Spring should so express himself 1t is
difficult to see wherein consists the dishonor
if the City Council should fit to exercise its
reserved right to reject all bids, and even if
there were, nobody can doubt that the court
on the petition of any citizen or taxpayer
would restrain the city government from sell
ing the property of its citizens for $175,500, if
any responsible purchaser was ready to pay
more.
1t is the general impression that the city's
right and title which has COST with interest,
more than million and half, is worth and
ought to bring more than has yet been offered,
and that 100000 at the very least might be
obtained for it.
1t is to be hoped that fair chance will be
given and that when the city does sell it will
simply dispose of its interest, be it more or
less, and step out of the concern, leaving the
$35O0OO bondholders to their legal rights
against the purchaser, with whom and not
with the city they will have to deal.
CITIZEN.