The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1883-08-28
The Mayor Interviewed.

IN former discussion about city affairs
when "Looker On" lind snarled himself up
with the facts, he interviewed the Mayor to
get himself untangled. The facts pre-
sented in the PRESS of Saturday have con-
fused the Mayors defenders again and he is
appealed to,-a reporter of the Argus taking
The responsibility, to help bis friends out
OF the mire of of their ignorance. The May
ors talent for financeering appears on this
occasion almost as brilliantly as when he
represented that Mr.. Prince was saving
money by getting work done by the day at
greater cost than responsible bidders had
offered to do the same work for. He has
however repudiated LOCKER On" He says
he has "made statements not warranted by
the actual figures" and that he deems the
attempt of LOCKER ON to defend his ad-
ministration ''injudicious," and hopes it
will not be continued. 1t is hard recon-
pense for such zeal as sLooker On'' has
shown in the Mayors cause to be so sum-
marily discredited. Of course this disposes
OF him and there will be no further neces-
sity of considering him as an accredited or
competent defender of the Mayors policy.
But what has the Mayor to say for him
self? Well he has mot time nor inclina
nation to discuss city business" We can
easily believe that the situation is not one
to which he cares to have public attention
directed There are things going on which
it would require considerable time to ex-
PLAIN satisfactorily, if it could be done at
ALL He does not attempt to question any
of the facts we have presented; but he does
attempt to offset their effect in some degree
by al allegation concerning the administra-
ton of Mayor Libby. We quote what he is
reported to have said on this point.
He remarked that Mr.. Libby, in defiance of the
ordinances. carried toward the expenses of last
year the unexpended balances of upwards Of S19-
200. This sum added to the appropri alton Of
e769,741.2 90 made $500 600 exceeding the appro-
pristion of this year (s797, 8737U) some s12 600.
Therefore the statement of the PRESS that the
amount raised this year exceeds the amount avala-
BILE last year by Mayor Lbbys carrying forward the
unexpendsd balances and not settling the books of
the city. is fair sample of the honesty of the
PRESS in Its discussions of city affairs,
/. Mayor Libby did nothing in defiance
of city ordinances but only what the City
Council specially authorized. There are no
ordinances which are superior to the action
of the City Council. The ordinances are a
law for all departments of the city govern
ment In the absence of specific action by
the City Council, but the power that
makes ordinances can unmake them
and can give special direction in particular
lions to their general operation.
2. At the end of the year this sum of
$4,000, more or less, was returned I'M
touched to the sinking fund with about
$4,000 more, the surplus saved during the
year from the appropriations and income.
The total amount of surplus turned into the
sinking fund from these sources, including
that which the City Council withheld at the
beginning of the year, being s43, S91.36.
8. When the Mayor wishes to impugn
the honesty of the discussion of city finances
by the PRESS we will thank him to represent
honestly what the PRESS says. The PRESS
has made no statement that "the amount
raised this year exceeds the amount acdila-
Die last year" We said that s'the appropri-
ations this year are greater than those of
last year." aud that is true. We said that
s'the actual appropriation for current city
expenses lie greater under this administra-
ton than under that of Mayor Libby and
that is true. These comparisons relate to
appropriations and their object. Now we
will say that the available resources, includ-
income and taxes, are very much larger this
year than last year, even when the unused
$4,000 is counted in with the resources of
last year, and this the Mayor will not dis
pute.
We have question to ask Mayor Deering.
By what authority does he appropriate for
the current expenses this year large part
of the amount Of that judgment paid by the
Grand Trunk Railroad Company? We have
been unable to discover any order of the
City Council authorizing it. This money
does not belong to the income account, but
to the sinking fund. We truat the Mayor
will have both the time and the inclination
to explain this strange proceeding.