The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1883-03-05
THE MAYOR,
And the Charges Brought Against Him.

The Argus criticism of Mayor Libby be-
cause he recommended the passage of an order
providing that the unexpended balances of
the last municipal year be carried forward to
THIS years accounts betrays lamentable ig-
norance Of the law on the subject No lawyer
OF any standing would hazard his reputation
by endorsing auch a criticism.
An ordinance of the city (Rev. Ord, p, 450,
aec.l provides that the unexpended balances
OF the annual appropriations shall be applied
TO the payment of the city debt. The City
council unanimously ordered these balances
to be carried forward The necessity of some
action was unquestioned, which the Argus
does not deny, but the Argus says that the
ordinance above referred to should have first
been repealed before the passage of the
orcer. An ordinance is simply standing or
der, or rule, for general purposes, and differs
from an order only In the fact that the letter is
passed for special purpose. The City Coun-
Gil may at any time repeal all prior ordinances
as the last City Council did. The rules and
orders Of the City Council may be waived or
suspended at any time. This may be done di-
reetly or by the passage of an order inconsis-
tent herewith as was done in this case. This
is clearly within the powers Of the City Coun-
Gil. The same power that made the ordinances
can repeal or suspend them If these rules
were in the charter it would be otherwise, as
the authority of the Legislature is superior
to that of thesCity Council and may limit
its powers. The ordinance referred to. Is
not the creation of the legislature but of the
city council. The city council is always in full
possession of all its powers. Rules are adopted
merely for convenience and may be dispensed
with for the same reason: and the ordinances
may at any time be repealed absolutely or sus-
pended in particular case by an order passed
by mayors vote. The sentiment was unani-
nous on the part of both branches of the city
council that some immediate action should be
taken and the only question was what the
proper course TO pursue should be. The case
has now been decided in favor Of the city and
the money, as soon as paid over, can be re-
turned to the sinking fund.
In regard to the assumption of power by the
Mayor in advertising for bids for the CONNER
cial street sewer it is we'll known that he had
not assumed any power " ich was not granted
to him by the board of Aldermen, with the
express assent and approval of the committee
on drains and sewers, for the purpose of secur-
ing prompt action to satisfy claimants for dam
ages and save costs to the city. Every mer-
chant on Commercial street knows what the
condition of things was in regard to that sewer.
The question may we'll be asked why didn't
Mr.. Deering, the Argus candidate, who knew
all about this matter when he was alderman,
endeavor to remedy the evil instead of waiting
for Mr.. Libby, new man in city affairs. to be-
come acquainted with 1t and promptly meet
it.
The Argus arraigns Mayor Libby for execut-
ing the prohibitory law, but not in the Argus
way. Has the Argus forgotten how a year
ago the Liquor Sellers Association called on
Mr.. Libby and offered him 600 votes if he
would let up on them if elected. Mr.. Libby
declined to entertain their proposition. Then
they called on Mr.. Deering and he accepted
their offer and received not only their votes
but $500 to try and elect him.