The Portland daily press., 1883-09-05
Our laundering Mayor.

0A 9l0A0SIAlS mayor,
very queer and absurd article in defense
OF the Mayors course in the meeting of the
City Government last Saturday appeared in
the Argus of yesterday. Its misrepresenta-
lions of fact, its looseness of statement, its
sophistry, its praise aud its abuse give it all
the earmarks of the style of LOCKER On"
We shall in good time pay it whatever at
tenuon may be necessary to make the truth
appear; but just now new performance by
the Mayor invites consideration. The fact
is this remarkable Mayor of ours blunders
so fast that it is matter of some difficulty
TO keep up with him in setting forth the
truth to the public. AS often as he speaks
or scta he invites criticism in the interest of
good government and right information.
The matter of present interest is the COM
munication made by the Mayor to the City
Council concerning the relaying of the
pavement in Commercial street torn up by
the authority of the committee Cd sewers
II IL true, as the Mayor says, that the street
is in bad condition and should be put in
order. 1t is also true and in accordance with
all precedents that the committee on sewers
should do the work and that the expense
should be charged to the sewer appropria-
ton. Why lie not this done as a matter of
course? The answer to this question re-
veals the whole snimus of the Mayors pro-
ceedings. The committee on sewers is made
op~ef Democrats aud the Mayor is its
chairman. That committee has done it's
work extrayagantly and its appropriation is
running low. The Mayor wants to save the
committees reputation, and his own, by
making the committee on streets which is
composed of Republicans do a part of the
work which it belongs to the committee on
sewers to do and have it paid for out of the
appropriation for the proper work of the
committee on streets. This of course
would require that committee TO do less of
Its proper work than had been planned,
and make it seem to have been extravagant
while his committee would seem to have
been efficient.
IL has been intimated that if the street
committee will assume this work which
does not belong to it an additional sum will
be transferred to it from the contingent
fund. This would enable the Mayor to saw
at the end of his term, ''The sewer COM
mittee, of which | am chairman, has done
its work within its appropriation; but the
committee on streets, composed of Republic
cans, managed so poorly that it had to
draw on the sinking fund to pay its ex-
penses." In short the Mayor desires to fix
on the Republicans the odium of the extrav-
agance or miscalculation for which his COM
mittee is responsible. He will not be able
to do it. Wherever the money comes from
to complete the sewer committees work the
Mayors scheme of imposition cannot now
be concealed. Let the sewers committee do
its own work and rot shirk it, and if there is
to be draft on the sinking fund let the
committee which makes it necessary take
the responsibility IN an honest and manly
way and not play the sneak.
The Mayor attempts to make 1t appear that
the committee on streets has broken faith
with him. The facts upon which this mis-
representation is based reflect no credit on
the Mayor. A week ago last Thursday he
went into the meeting of the committee on
streets, of which he was not member,
and where he had no business without an
Invitation, and demanded that the commit
tee should finish up the sewer job. But
three members of the committee, Messrs
Hawkes., Winchester and Winslow, were
present After an hours talk the two lat
ter adaRase sn mo %5rR Ra Ry psabssdaeD
meeting of the committee. held two DAYS af-
forwards, that vote was reconsidered and the
committee voted the other way. One reason
for the recon sideration was that the COM
mittee is forbidden by the city ordinances to
undertake any work to cost more than $500
without the express authorization of the
City Council. This is point which does
not seem to have occurred to the Mayor in
his eagerness to get the committee on
streets to shoulder his errors.
The Mayor, having been notified of this
last action, directed the Street Commissioner
to go to work repaving the street. Section
y of the Ordinance on Streets says the
Street Commissioner shall not make any
permanent repairs on the streets 'swithout
having first obtained Their efor the sanction
III writing of the committee on highways,
sidewalks and bridges" This he did not
have. The Mayor, whether as mayor or as
chairman of the committee on sewers we do
not know, gave him his only sanction. The
artfulness of the Mayor is shown by the
L. L. sol..- - 4.
communication. 1t directed the repair of
the street by the Street Commissioner ''the
cost of the same to be charged to the appro-
yriation for streets. Estimated cost $780,"
missioner has no proper sanction for the
work he is doing, if he is still at work. The
Mayor says that the Street Commissioner
concurs in his opinion. We hope he does
not concur ia allhis opinions, but he appears
to be willing instrument for carrying out
the Mayors scheme.
The Mayor gives in his official communi-
cation to the City Council a conspicuous ex-
ample of his capacity to distort in his favor
the plaiu language of the Ordinances. He
neJe ehoe bcS1ucO bhO StiOCG
refused to do the job sit therefore became
the duty of the Mayor to instruct the Street
Commissioner" to do the work, and refers
to the 10Th section of the Ordinance on
Streets. This section gives the Mayor no
authority over the street commissioner in
the matter. The only part of that section
which has any conceivable relation to the
matter in hand reads as follows:
When any person has obtained license to open
or make repair a dram aqueduct he thall
complete a finish the same with all possible des-
patch and shall in filing and Covering up the same
do It to the satistactions of the Commissioner of
Streets; and In case Of neglect to 20, the said
commissioner shall cause the same to be done in
suitable manner at the<rpensee Of the person to or
for ,oSom said license Oas granted.
This gives the commissioner independent
authority to act in cases where persons act
ing under q Hscnse have failed to comply
with the requirements, and that is all.
The Mayor n1ghtas WELL perhaps better,
have referred to a verse of scripture or to a
section of the constitution of the State of
New Jersey as warrant for the action taken
by him in this case. If there is any analogy
between thecase of person licensed to
tear up the street and tearing up by direc-